Constructive dismissal case or no?

ArseandElbow

Hi all.


Long story short..


My business is reallocating circa 200 miles away at end of the year. We were given an option to move with the job or take redundancy when move completes.


I enquired about salary if I was to move area (it's a fair bit more expensive than current location). I was told that there would be no change to income, so I declined the offer.


they've employed a new member of staff as my replacement who I am to train up/handover my work, which is fine for continuity purposes.


However I've found out they're paying him around 30% more than me.


There's no way they will turn around and let this person go now and tbh I don't want to move over with them after this revelation. I'm holding this info close to my chest as don't' want to give them any chance to "leave" me before any chance of a redundancy payment. Had I'd been offered this new salary it would have been a no brainer to move.


Where do I stand ? is there a case here should I wait until last few weeks and spring them with a solicitors letter etc..


cheers all.

Undervalued

Short answer - no.

You could have moved at your current salary but chose redundancy. Your choice.

What they are now paying somebody else is irrelevant.

ArseandElbow

There was no way I could consider moving on current salary, for example rent on a studio apartment in the area (I checked before I made a decision) would equate to over 50% of pay before utilities etc..


HR told me in an email what the salary would be if I moved but then give someone a 30% increase for doing the exact same job.


Doesn't sound fair to me. Had this salary been offered to me, I'd have snapped it up. I'd have earned my "redundancy" package figure in a space of 18 months.

comeandgo

The new employee is obviously a better negotiator than you, your employer will pay the lowest they can get away with and as long as discrimination not taking place there is nothing you can do.

getmore4less

Did you not keep an eye on the recruitment adverts you new they would need someone.


problem is fair is not something you can use to make a case.

Also don't rule out the possibility they did not want to keep you and/or this person is better.


Have you been put on notice yet.

ArseandElbow

There was no option of negotioating, simply told that the new rate would remain the same.


oh well if companies can do this then fine. My handover not going to be stellar lets say, slogged my guts out for the company over last few years.

ArseandElbow

getmore4less wrote: »

Did you not keep an eye on the recruitment adverts you new they would need someone.


problem is fair is not something you can use to make a case.

Also don't rule out the possibility they did not want to keep you and/or this person is better.


Have you been put on notice yet.

That's breaks my heart!! been in role 10 years! Actually last year I had my highest rating in my annual job review.


I'm one of 10 people being made redundant due to closure of this office and consolidating to a new site. Yes I knew they'd need someone because my role needed to be filled in the new area, but there was no reference of salaries other than "competitive".


From my understanding, they won't put us on notice and we'll receive a PILON end of the year (unofficially we know a rough date for end of the transition)

Undervalued

ArseandElbow wrote: »

There was no way I could consider moving on current salary, for example rent on a studio apartment in the area (I checked before I made a decision) would equate to over 50% of pay before utilities etc..


HR told me in an email what the salary would be if I moved but then give someone a 30% increase for doing the exact same job.


Doesn't sound fair to me. Had this salary been offered to me, I'd have snapped it up. I'd have earned my "redundancy" package figure in a space of 18 months.

Sorry, it may not sound "fair" to you (or me come to that)! But that doesn't make it unlawful. Unless your salary falls below the national minimum wage there is no right to a pay rise ever, it is a matter for negotiation. Apart from a few situations that would amount to unlawful discrimination it is perfectly lawful to pay employees different amounts for doing the same job.

steampowered

I don't think you have a legal case. But is it possible there is a miscommunication issue? Perhaps HR weren't kept in the loop and told you the wrong thing?

You could at least make the point that new starters are being offered 30% more than your current salary, and say that you would like to take this if it is in offer.

Undervalued

Just to add....

Had they moved to an area where property was much cheaper than your current town, I assume you would have been happy to have your pay reduced accordingly?

Or do you feel it is only "fair" one way?

ArseandElbow

I used "fair" because it's just a term I use. I could have just said they deceived me into believing that the salary was to remain at x rate if I accepted the move. I know pay rises are not a right (believe me I know that !!). However, my major grievance is that they've said one thing and done another.


Here's an excerpt of the email exchange between me and the Human Resource Manager.


My initial question


"One question I thought of after scanning the pack I received, the role advertised which is essentially mine (well same title and roles), would there be any differences in salary as obviously any prospective move would incur an additional cost"


and the reply


"I just wanted to let you know that we have received the benchmarking data back from the Salary/Benefits team. It you were to transfer the salary would be your current salary"


As you mentioned if there is no comeback on them doing this then they can do what they like to get people out of jobs. I was still an employee here and still speaking to the manager in charge of recruitment/redundancy etc.. so if they were changing the salary range why didn't they inform me?