Displaced role - options?

lveg69

I dont think quite like that. For whatever reason, the job that was on the org chart (my old job + another) wasnt filled (dont think they even interviewed for it. While I was still there the 'other' part of the job was hived off and someone filled it. This left my old job. I left and this has recently been advertised and filled.

sangie595

lveg69 wrote: »

I dont think quite like that. For whatever reason, the job that was on the org chart (my old job + another) wasnt filled (dont think they even interviewed for it. While I was still there the 'other' part of the job was hived off and someone filled it. This left my old job. I left and this has recently been advertised and filled.

But unless you could prove otherwise, that is the employers defence and it is the way the law will probably see it. The law permits subsequent changes which arise from changed circumstances - and "your post" was filled after you left. But I have to point this out again - it was not "your post" because a post is not just the tasks that the person does, but the terms of conditions of employment that go with it. If, and I stress if, the employer did as you suggested and removed the "role for a period before reinstating the position at a lower level to save costs" then this isn't the same role, even if absolutely everything else about it is exactly the same - which is not the case anyway. You know the title has changed. You can't say for certain that nothing else has changed.

If you are correct, there would have been a much easier way for the employer to do this. Cheaper for them and less hassle. They offer you the new post at the reduced salary and enforce it - deem it a suitable alternative and tell you that you take it or you will not get redundancy pay. It is actually much easier to reduce someones pay and conditions than anyone thinks. Tribunals have, for many years now, accepted that a job is better than no job, and operated on the basis of accepting cuts in pay if the alternative is redundancy. It is quite certain that up to 10% would almost always get through. Up to 15% + is known. That way they could have saved themselves any redundancy payment; had the security that if you challenged it it would cost you expensive tribunal fees (so not very likely); and if you did challenge it they would have a good chance of winning. Worst case scenario - they have to pay you a very small amount of money to go away - and in this scenario this whole point is that they want you to "go away".

To be honest, I think that is overthinking it. I doubt that is what happened. I generally find that the "cockup" version of history is more compelling that the "conspiracy" version. Your employers wanted to make changes - and yes, no doubt save money. They came up with a plan. For some reason that plan didn't work so they ditched it.

"Is it worth challenging them at all?" (a) how long ago did this all happen? (b) what would be the point of doing that - what outcome would you want? (c) do you have another job yet?

getmore4less

The key is what do you want

The company when they changed their minds and made the 2 into one back to 2 jobs could have reviewed the list of those at risk/on notice of redundancy and seen if there is suitable candidate and put them in the job or see if anyone wants it.

you had already said not keen, perhaps thought best not to offer it now and have you moan about the pay.


The most likely outcome would have the job on the new terms or you redundant.

that would be your basis for any challenge, if they had asked, would have said yes

If the job is still vacant then it might be worth a try, if filled a slightly different approach of if the new person does not work out can I be considered if I have not found another job.

The other option it to let things go and keep the possibility of getting a job back there some other time, any dispute raising will most likely close that door for good.

lveg69

Thanks both.
This all happened in the last couple of months and I'm still looking for a job.
In hindsight and looking through your advice, it seems sensible to walk away and not get bogged down in a fruitless exercise of challenging the business.
It was worth digging and asking though and your responses are very much appreciated.

All the best.

sangie595

lveg69 wrote: »

Thanks both.
This all happened in the last couple of months and I'm still looking for a job.
In hindsight and looking through your advice, it seems sensible to walk away and not get bogged down in a fruitless exercise of challenging the business.
It was worth digging and asking though and your responses are very much appreciated.

All the best.

Yes, I agree - walk away. You don't have anything much to go on, you didn't appeal, you have left it until now - and, most importantly, you still need a good reference from them .In those circumstances you want to keep them on side, and risking the reference isn't worthwhile when there isn't any evidence anything wrong was done.

getmore4less

They could easily string you along and get any claim out of time (3 monthe less a day)

If struggling to find something and would be prepared to go back could be worth a call to see if they have anything, if not sure if they just wanted rid you could try an inquiry through a previous work mate.