Job might be at risk

Lucy_89

Hi everyone, just wondering if anyone can help.

I work for a large organisation, and around a month ago we had an "all employee call" in which the managing director said that they will be beginning talks with the unions, and there will be an organisational restructure, which will result in job losses. More information will be available in December as to who is affected, which feels like a lifetime away when waiting for bad news.

This has resulted in the rumor mill going into overdrive, with people cancelling Christmas holidays etc incase they have no jobs in January.

We have been told also that people who receive an acceptable annual "rating" (1 is best, 5 is worst) of between 1-3 will find out their ratings by the end of November. Those who receive ratings of 4 and 5 will be invited to have further "discussions". People are speculating that those who receive 4-5 ratings will be sacked. If there is a restructure, which makes some roles redundant, then these people might be who the call was aimed towards,

My question is therefore twofold.

Is it possible that people can be made redundant, even if their role continues to exist, and those who receive gradings of 4 or 5 can be made redundant? If these people are not made "redundant", can they simply be sacked based on their annual ratings, without any forewarning, such as through a development plan?

I am not sure if I am confusing "redundancy" with "bad performance and being sacked". I am sorry if this is a stupid question, I have had a real bad time of it recently financially which has resulted in bad performance and I am worried at the thought of losing my job.

Thanks x

andrewg112

Lucy, my understanding was that after making redundancies the positions could not be re-advertised for at least a couple of years. I also think a business can make who-ever is needed redundant (I have seen a situation where a high performer was made redundant).

What sort of role do you do, are cuts likely to be made to your department ?

Lucy_89

Hi Andrew,

I am purposefully trying to be as vague as possible for anonymity purposes, but the call was aimed at my business unit specifically. As far as I am aware they are continuing to recruit for my job role, which makes me feel as though it is not just the standard "redundancies" they are planning, but a wider getting rid of people with low ratings. Surely they can't just get rid of people who haven't been given a chance to improve, or can they?

elsien

How long have you worked there? If it's less than two years then they don't really need a reason to let someone go, regardless of redundancies. However "Further discussions" may simply be a performance plan - after all they need people to be working effectively so it would be usual practice to say this isn't ok, these are your targets s to improve otherwise we may be looking at disciplinary action further down the line.

However it's entirely possible that the rumour mill is putting two and two together and coming up with five. Redundancy means the role doesn't exist any more. If a role has two people doing it and they now only need one, then they need to choose who will stay and who will go. When selecting people for redundancy the criteria generally involve a number of factors, and the consultation process should share this beforehand. The annual appraisal would very likely be included this but there could be other factors such as disciplinary and sickness. It's up to the employer what factors they use and how they weight them.
I think you need to try not to panic until you have some clearer information to go on. Are you or any of your colleagues in a union?

sangie595

andrewg112 wrote: »

Lucy, my understanding was that after making redundancies the positions could not be re-advertised for at least a couple of years. I also think a business can make who-ever is needed redundant (I have seen a situation where a high performer was made redundant).

What sort of role do you do, are cuts likely to be made to your department ?

Good grief... Your "understanding" is entirely wrong!

elsiens's advice is correct.

OK, yes, it is possible to reduce headcount (the number of people doing a job) by redundancy, and this is very common. If the employer wishes to use the evaluation as their selection criteria, they may, although elsien is correct that normally other factors would be included - but this is a decision for the employer. They might, for example, select the 4 and 5's to put at risk, then use disciplinary, absence, and other factors to select amongst them. This would be quite acceptable. It is unlikely that the evaluation would have no bearing at all.

If someone had less than two years service they could very easily be dismissed based on their performance - or on any other almost reason, or none. They cannot claim unfair dismissal except for a small number of causes, so it would be very common for an employer to select this group of people first - especially since they also get no redundancy pay, so they are cheap to dismiss.

It is complete rubbish that an employer has to wait two years before re-advertising a role. Not that this appears to be relevant if they intend to make redundancies. But the reality is that they don't have to wait two weeks, technically - provided they can demonstrate that the circumstances have changed (such as perhaps landing a huge new contract), and, of course, that the person dismissed has two years effluent anyway. In reality, with exceptions such as a totally unexpected upturn or change, and where the dismissed employee had two years or more service - just three months! At that point they are out of time to make a tribunal claim.

Comms69

andrewg112 wrote: »

Lucy, my understanding was that after making redundancies the positions could not be re-advertised for at least a couple of years. I also think a business can make who-ever is needed redundant (I have seen a situation where a high performer was made redundant).

What sort of role do you do, are cuts likely to be made to your department ?

Months maybe to be safe, legally they can be re-advertised 'as soon as the business need arises'

Lucy_89

Ok thanks all for your detailed responses.

So the bottom line is then even if the role continues to exist (which it will), they can still reduce the number of people in that job through redundancies, and the performance rating along with other factors will help them decide who those unlucky people are.

I have only been here less than a year and I am anticipating a 4 rating so I guess I will be first for the chop ...

sangie595

It doesn't look good no - you should start looking for another job. But don't assume too much. You don't know what other considerations may be at play. There is no reason to assume the worst - and it won't hurt you to ignore it until it happens. It may not.

Sarastro

I agree with sangie595, you should get your CV together and start job-hunting. But don't assume you're going to be made redundant; for example they might focus on higher paid middle management rather than lower paid staff so it isn't black and white.