Is this OK?

tails009

Will try and cut a long story short here.

I work in UK for a US engineering company. Recently we were given notice that our entire department was at risk of redundancy and we entered the consultation period. Since managers were included, consultation was being done over the phone between our reps and senior management in the US - started off amicably but today it stalled.

Background of the situation: I work in a department where by employees work in one of three areas, type X (research and development projects), type Y (simpler quick turnaround projects) & type Z (product support). I work in type Z.

In the initial letter I recieved at the start, it detailed that our location would no longer be conducting type X due to proven history of not meeting deadlines and costs. However, all work types were being given notice. Note that reasons for redundancy do not affect type Z since we have no development therefore neither the deadlines or costs (apart from wages). This also doesn't cover type Y.

We were also told that some new roles will be created to cover type Y & Z. They advised however that the work carried out in these future roles will be different from those currently being conducted.

Fast forward a week from getting the letter and PDFs detailing the new roles are emailed out for those that wish to apply. The new job has not only the same roles and responsibilities as what I'm currently doing but also the same job title. In fact the date on the pdf is 2010. However, the pdf does specify type Y / Z in roles and responsibilities whereas my current contract does not. When new employees started with the company, they just got placed in whatever are needed more staff.

Fast forward again to today and we have now been given a next week submission deadline for applying with interviews the following week. We have also been told that we will not be given details of remuneration until they make the offer and that they may offer a lower salary than we are currently receiving. We were then advised that if we don't take the new position if offered, we will be deemed to have quit and not be entitled to any redundancy payout.

So.... My questions are:
1. Is it right that type Z jobs were included when the reasons for redundancies did not apply? (When we queried they argued that a type X employee could transfer to type Z so everyone should be included)
2. How can they say the new jobs are different when in black and white they have the same job title and cover the same duties. Just because they've neglected the bit about type X? I wasn't doing that anyway?
3. Is it right that they can offer me a job for less money, then refuse redundancy if I don't take it? What if they offer £1k a year?

Perhaps I feel defensive because it's happening to me but it just seems odd.

Thanks for reading and thanks in advance for your insights.

getmore4less

The reps need to push back on this.

They should tell the employer to get some proper UK legal advice on the redundancy process

The you have to apply or you resign is to get round the redundancy process.

if you apply then you pretty much have to accept whatever they give you including any pay drop.

You have to ask why are they not following a proper redundancy process and are these suitable alternatives or not.

for you to decide they need to include the remuneration packages.

If they are then they should engage in a selection process.
if not then you should not have to apply.

how many redundancies do they plan to make?

if the skills are transferable then a single pool of all employees is probably OK(except there probably should be multiple pools for different levels.

2 of my previous employers used to do the whole office is at risk when going through rounds of redundancy even when they were being selective about specific subgroups losing people.

tails009

Thanks for your reply.

There are 35 at risk and there are 5 new jobs. Yes in all honesty the skills are transferable. My thinking was that if it is the job that is redundant rather than the person then my job will be being continued so why should I not be the one doing it.

They will give remuneration details at the time of offer rather than at the time of interview (apparently). Unfortunately I'm forced to go gor it due to having dependants and there aren't jobs going local time right now as it's an industry in a bit of a crisis.

I either accept less money or lose my redundancy? If they said it would be too little then I wouldn't apply but I'm being forced to apply just to find out. 😡

tails009

Just to add that I'm faulty confident the 5 to remain have already been selected and the interview process is just something to be gone through.

As I said its a U.S. based company and the redundancy process there is far easier for them. The only uk based part of this process is the HR rep sitting in on meetings making sure the process is being followed.

sangie595

I agree that if the jobs are directly transferable then there should be no question of applying - they should simply go straight to a selection procedure amongst all affected staff. But the real question is - what happens if you don't apply? Does that mean that you go straight to redundancy? If that is the case, then the word "apply" may be an issue around semantics - a case of, if you want to be considered for a job then tell us, and if you want to volunteer for redundancy, tell us that. You need to clarify this with them. If it is just semantics, then as long as you have a provable statement (as in, in writing) then that is ok.

On the issue of pay, technically the employer may be correct. It is a very long time since the definition of a suitable alternative employment included the need for the pay to be the same. Tribunals have been accepting drops of 10% - 15% as acceptable, and that isn't likely to change any time soon. Especially not now. So, if you were to be offered a job and the pay is within that sort of range, you would have to take a risk or not. Refuse and the employer can refuse redundancy pay. You would then have to take out a tribunal claim, because they are the only people who can say which of you is right.

However, if you wish to apply, I would make sure that you have clarified the above, and that any application clearly states that in asking to be put into the pool for consideration, you are not accepting that this role is a suitable alternative employment in law because you have not been given full details of the terms and conditions, including pay, in order to make such a determination.

Does that help make it clearer?

PS. Just to add. Of course making it clear that you know your rights will probably ensure you don't get selected. US companies don't like employees who have rights and know about them. But you are probably right, and they have decided already. But try proving that.

getmore4less

tails009 wrote: »

Just to add that I'm faulty confident the 5 to remain have already been selected and the interview process is just something to be gone through.

As I said its a U.S. based company and the redundancy process there is far easier for them. The only uk based part of this process is the HR rep sitting in on meetings making sure the process is being followed.

The problem is the correct process it is not being followed.

the threat of don't apply no redundancy is not the correct process and the reps need to get that sorted and insist on the consultation continuing.

tails009

Thanks for your replies.

My understanding is that if you don't apply then you are made redundant on a date 30 days after the letters were handed out. The company have paid out enhanced redundancy packages in the past but no idea if they will now as they appear to be backing people into a corner.

sangie595

I am not clear that the employer said that they would not pay redundancy if they didn't apply. I understood that they are saying that they will refuse redundancy if someone turns down the offered job after applying. And technically, in law, they may be able to do that. It'd probably be a stupid move that will cost them more than the redundancy even if they won, but stupidity isn't something in short supply amongst employers.

If this is the correct interpretation of what the employer has said to the OP, then in law the employer is giving advice which may well be correct - but it is advice, not a threat. And not a failure in process.

sangie595

tails009 wrote: »

Thanks for your replies.

My understanding is that if you don't apply then you are made redundant on a date 30 days after the letters were handed out. The company have paid out enhanced redundancy packages in the past but no idea if they will now as they appear to be backing people into a corner.

I didn't see this when I was posting. If this is the case, then the employer is correct in as far as what they have goes. You have the choice not to apply and become redundant. The process is therefore intact.

As I said, whether they can get away with refusing redundancy if someone refuses the job after applying is a matter for a tribunal, but the amount of the reduction of pay, if there is one, will be a key fact in any such case.

tails009

Ok thanks. It is an assumption on my part that redundancy will be paid if the job is not applied for. They haven't actually said this.

well unfortunately I have to apply in order to keep my job, there is nothing else out there just now in my field and with dependants I can't afford to gamble and not apply. A 10% pay cut I could live with but 50% I couldn't.

Thanks

sangie595

tails009 wrote: »

Ok thanks. It is an assumption on my part that redundancy will be paid if the job is not applied for. They haven't actually said this.

well unfortunately I have to apply in order to keep my job, there is nothing else out there just now in my field and with dependants I can't afford to gamble and not apply. A 10% pay cut I could live with but 50% I couldn't.

Thanks

And that is exactly why tribunals have been ruling as they have. A job is better than benefits, and gives someone time to look for another one if that is what they wish to do.

I think you ought to follow my advice on saying that you don't accept this as a suitable alternative until you have the full terms. But that may make you are target, so you must decide what to do.

Come back if you have to make a decision whether to accept or not.