Redundancy

ds1980

Am facing redundancy. Will try and be concise. 2 roles of equal grade being made redundant. 2 new roles being made one grade above and one grade below. I was only candidate for grade higher but failed to basically get my own job after interview. My own fault as I just can't get my head around talking about myself but that's another story. My main issue is that new and old JD's are almost identical. I've been doing the old job for nearly 5 years without issue but supposedly due to the interview process they can't employ me for the new role so I now face redundancy. Union have reiterated what I already knew even though I raised my concern that the jobs are 95% identical. I've worked in the department for 13 years. Should I just move on? Just seem v unfair.

Ta

lincroft1710

ds1980 wrote: »

My main issue is that new and old JD's are almost identical.

Unfortunately, almost identical isn't identical, although is there enough difference between the roles that definitely makes them different.

ds1980

I was under the impression there is a 75% rule? There is one point on the new JD out of about 10 that could be deemed as new. The rest is word for word copy and pasted. The old JD actually includes more points of responsibilities than the newer higher graded role also.

sangie595

ds1980 wrote: »

I was under the impression there is a 75% rule? There is one point on the new JD out of about 10 that could be deemed as new. The rest is word for word copy and pasted. The old JD actually includes more points of responsibilities than the newer higher graded role also.

There is no such rule. Nor is there a rule for any other %-age. Nor do "points of responsibility" count. What does count though, is the fact that the terms and conditions are different and the job is a grade higher.

This is not a straightforward scenario, and really, your union are probably nest placed to advise you given their knowledge of the details. But it seems to me that this boils down to one of two possibilities. Your employers have had 13 years to get to know you and your skills. And interviews are a very inexact science. But they are, if their policy dictates it, required to interview - and I would expect this to be the case because of the higher grade.

So either, as a result of the interview, they decided they were not confident that your skills were adequate for the job, and did so entirely fairly based solely on the performance at interview - which is what they are supposed to do and what they say. Or they don't want you in the job. They are saying it is the former, and so are you. You say you didn't do well at the interview. In which case, it is really bad luck but they have been fair. Of course, if it is the latter, and there is some other reason, then it will be up to you to find evidence of that so that someone can determine whether they have acted unlawfully or not.

If you actually do agree that the interview was fair - you imply this, but stop short of saying so - then you have your answer. No matter how unjust it feels, they have acted fairly in law, and it is just very bad luck.

ds1980

Thanks for that. Union have reiterated that due to interview I haven't been successful therefore to find out next steps. I don't feel that the process has been unfair therefore I think I have the answer as I wouldn't be able to prove anything to the contrary. Best off out of it I think. Ta

sangie595

That's a pretty decent way to look at it. The one possibility I can think of - and it is a stretch - is to ask if they would consider trial period. That would enable them to terminate if you can't do the job. But it may not be something they can do. And also, you may want to consider, assuming that higher pay also means that you have management responsibilities, that your staff would probably know that you didn't get the job at interview, and that might put you in a difficult position.

getmore4less

A bit late now but an approach may have been to go down the suitable alternative route(policy may not have allowed for that) to bypass the interview as there was no need for a selection process if there is only one person suitable for the role.

ds1980

It's my role. The role isn't any different to what I'm already doing no matter how they dress it up. They know full well I can do it but it's gone past that now. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't anything legally that they might have done. It's their loss. I'll move onto something where I'm appreciated hopefully after I've had a nice long holiday!!

Ta