Constructive dismissal case or no?

ArseandElbow

steampowered wrote: »

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.

HR and the manager heading the redundancy/recruitment were all in the same email. I spoke to the said manager for my reasons to decline the move.


The new salary issue has only come to light as the "new" me is now in place. They were struggling to find a replacement and even asked if would be willing to work from home if they didn't find someone after their deadline.

ArseandElbow

Undervalued wrote: »

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?

Well it is the companies decision for the move, there was no onus on them to move other than a managerial decision. This office had been here for 30 years. If they had moved to a "cheaper" area then the current workforce wouldn't be affected so that scenario is moot.

Takeaway_Addict

ArseandElbow wrote: »

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?

things change, perhaps initially they underestimated and realised that they would need to go higher when hiring and ultimately perhaps they thought the other person was the better fit.

Move on IMO

ArseandElbow

It's a shame then they didn't consider letting me know considering I'm the only person in the company doing this role.


Well thanks for the advice, it sucks that they can do this but oh well.. just need to get busy looking for my new job!

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

They haven't said one thing and done another. They said "If you were to transfer the salary would be your current salary".

Note the "you".

They don't want to pay you any more than they are paying you. They are however happy to pay other people more to do the job. You might not think that is fair but it happens in every company every day.

Undervalued

ArseandElbow wrote: »

Well it is the companies decision for the move, there was no onus on them to move other than a managerial decision. This office had been here for 30 years. If they had moved to a "cheaper" area then the current workforce wouldn't be affected so that scenario is moot.

Sorry but no it is not moot.

Had they moved to a location where property was significantly cheaper any of the staff who relocated would have been better off on their current salaries. Few if any would dream of offering to have their salary reduced!

Why they are moving is irrelevant and is a "managerial decision" they are quite entitled to take. Assuming it is unreasonably far to commute then their only legal obligation is to pay statutory redundancy to those who don't want to move.

I sympathise, but that doesn't change anything.

ArseandElbow

it's 200 miles away, so no way of commuting.


Still nice to know they value me ha ha.

getmore4less

ArseandElbow wrote: »

HR and the manager heading the redundancy/recruitment were all in the same email. I spoke to the said manager for my reasons to decline the move.


The new salary issue has only come to light as the "new" me is now in place. They were struggling to find a replacement and even asked if would be willing to work from home if they didn't find someone after their deadline.

That should have sent alarm bells to go looking for the job adverts and making inquiries if no salary.

Also at the time you should have reminded them that the only reason you were not moving was the remuneration so working from home is not the only option.

stator

Well it's certainly incompetant of them but luckily for most firms incompetance isn't illegal.

I would certainly let them know that you know about the higher salary and think it was silly of them not to offer it to you. Since they are making you redundant they could have saved quite a few thousand pounds.

ArseandElbow

Well I accepted that there may be a difference in salary and to be honest I was accepting of that. Oh just realised now I'm slightly more calm (ish!) that' the salary is nearly 50% more than mine.


Well if they think he was better for the job surely I shouldn't be training him?