Displaced role - options?

lveg69

Hi All
A few months ago my role was put at risk due to a restructure.
I was told it was being displaced. My role was still in the business but had other duties bolted on (new role with increased responsibility and less salary)
I put in a counter proposal and was asked to flesh this proposal out. It wasn't successful.
During the consultation period I asked questions such as
*why my role was being displaced and I had to apply for a new combined role when someone in a similar position had just been transferred across without having to apply
*Why my role couldn't being migrated across (70%) fit / same duties
*I was told during redundancy that one of my teams would be made redundant and moved to a new city - but 'not yet' due to resource issues. This team were highlighted in the restructure as 'vacant' positions but when asked were told it was a mistake. They are now at risk
None were answered and I was made redundant.
I asked again that my questions were answered.
They weren't and I received an exit letter and left the business.
Since leaving, the role that was part mine (with other duties bolted on) has been split - leaving 2 positions. One mirrors my original role (but with a different title and lower salary) and the other bolted on role is now separate (and was filled before i left).

I am about to raise my concerns with the business. Do I have cause to and is it worth seeking legal advice?

Thanks

lincroft1710

What outcome are you hoping for?

lveg69

I'm not sure. I suppose thats the basis of what I'm trying to find out. Have I been treated fairly. If they have done nothing wrong then I won't pursue and its the end of the matter. If they have not followed procedure / treated staff fairly is it worth challenging them and raising my concern or is it worth taking legal advice (but to what end - there is no chance of being back to the position I was before and I am now seeking other employment).

lincroft1710

Whether you were treated fairly or unfairly is immaterial, whether your treatment was in accordance with employment law is material.

But even if your dismissal contravened employment law, I would repeat what outcome are you seeking?

This is a guide to your rights when being made redundant

https://www.gov.uk/redundant-your-rights/overview

lveg69

Thanks , i've read through that and its useful.
What I'm trying to understand and work out (and I dont think the link details this) is if the business has followed process and been fair. In essence, I was told my role was displaced. I asked questions around my role being combined with another and if my role was a 70% fit (so could be migrated across) and / or was it actually being displaced when it was still 'there' but combined with another. What prompted me to write the OP was the fact the new part of the role has since been removed and my old role has now been filled again (but with a different title / lower salary).
In my mind - potentially removing my role for a period before reinstating the position at a lower level to save costs. I'm not sure if this is material or not.
If it isnt, my expectation for an outcome is nil as there is nothing to challenge on, if it is material then I move onto whether I challenge them (myself / via a legal route) - the outcome would ideally be my old role back. This is doubtful though so I am not sure if it is worth pursuing or if there is a route for unfair dismissal or not.
I suspect not but wanted to be sure before leaving and moving on.

sangie595

To be honest, it would take a lot more digging around to be able to give an accurate assessment, and even then, it wouldn't be easy - forums like this provide one sided versions full of missing information, so everything is a best guess. So I am going to go with just one make or break question. Did you tell the employer that you were willing to take the cut in salary to be moved to the new job? Did you apply for that job and were turned down? (Because actually from your post it isn't clear whether you had to apply and were turned down or whether you just didn't apply)

lveg69

I spoke to my employer and raised concerns that my role was still there but that with the added duties and the fact the salary had been downgraded then I wasn't keen on applying.
That is when they asked me to add another element / role part in (so the salary could be upgraded). They asked me to apply for this and indicated it was just me and the role would be mine. It was decided not to take this larger role forward. This was never 'official' or advertised.
I was not given the option to apply for the role again (in fact by then an element had been hived off and filled leaving my original role 'vacant' but with no official communication on what would happen with it)
I was then exited with none of my questions answered other than my role had been displaced.
Its now apparent that my old role (as Ive said - lower level / salary but same job) has been filled (so in my mind wasn't displaced?) with the original added element filled and a separate job.

Sorry - I know its a minefield and the truth is, I'm 95% sure there is nothing to challenge here but just wanted to be sure.

Andy_L

How long have you worked there?

sangie595

lveg69 wrote: »

I spoke to my employer and raised concerns that my role was still there but that with the added duties and the fact the salary had been downgraded then I wasn't keen on applying.
That is when they asked me to add another element / role part in (so the salary could be upgraded). They asked me to apply for this and indicated it was just me and the role would be mine. It was decided not to take this larger role forward. This was never 'official' or advertised.
I was not given the option to apply for the role again (in fact by then an element had been hived off and filled leaving my original role 'vacant' but with no official communication on what would happen with it)
I was then exited with none of my questions answered other than my role had been displaced.
Its now apparent that my old role (as Ive said - lower level / salary but same job) has been filled (so in my mind wasn't displaced?) with the original added element filled and a separate job.

Sorry - I know its a minefield and the truth is, I'm 95% sure there is nothing to challenge here but just wanted to be sure.

Yes , I think I would agree. Given the fact that you told the employer you wouldn't be happy with the pay cut, I think they had reasonable grounds to assume that any pay cut was not acceptable to you. People can come up with all sorts of fancy words to describe stuff. It's redundancy, and it exists or not. Displaced is just an attempt to make it sound better. It doesn't! The job consists of a role AND terms. The terms changed - the salary was reduced. In the end I think that, for all the dancing around, and whatever the thinking was, this would be a redundancy. Employers often dig themselves holes by trying to dance around facts. I suspect this is what was going on here. But I found it is really worth trying to pick holes. In the end, the balance is whether you have enough to make it worth paying the cost of a tribunal. It doesn't look like you have.

lveg69

I've worked there for 3 1/2 years.
Is it worth challenging them direct at all.
I chose not to apply for the role of my old one + the added element bolted on.
This was later split again and my old role (which was not advertised while I was there so I wouldnt be aware of salary etc) was in effect still in place?
I'm just trying to work through and map against your points as you reply (in case there is anything I've missed that may make a difference?)

sangie595

lveg69 wrote: »

I've worked there for 3 1/2 years.
Is it worth challenging them direct at all.
I chose not to apply for the role of my old one + the added element bolted on.
This was later split again and my old role (which was not advertised while I was there so I wouldnt be aware of salary etc) was in effect still in place?
I'm just trying to work through and map against your points as you reply (in case there is anything I've missed that may make a difference?)

From what you are saying, a job with the same responsibilities as your old job bit with lower pay ( therefore not the same job) was created after you left, it would appear, in response to the fact that the employer was unable to to fill the posts that it desired to create? Is that correct?