edundancy by phone call after working with company for 12 years

chrissy3634

My son received a phone call from HR just before the weekend to say his role was redundant

He has now been told his role has been transferred to an office in Europe ( same company) but he wasn't given the option to accept this position

He's gutted! Any advice please?

JessyRM

It depends on several factors, has he got two years service and therefore qualifies for redundancy? Or are they just using the wrong language to terminate his position.

Edit: just saw your title.

Was he put at risk of redundancy prior to the phone call?

Under redundancy law the company should attempt to find a suitable alternative role, they may be able to argue that the new role was not suitable for him as he would need to relocate but it does sound unfair. He might be better getting advice from his union or ACAS.

sangie595

Transfer to a European office, even if he wanted it, is highly unlikely to now be a viable option for suitable alternative employment. Assuming he knows the required languages, and is willing to relocate (very likely at his own expense), then it is quite possible that he would be unable to subsequently obtain the required work visas once the UK leaves the European Union. We decided to pull out of the single market - inability to freely work in other European countries is one of the consequences. Whilst there are likely to be some protections in place for people currently working in another European country (if a deal is struck), that isn't likely to apply to anyone leaning the UK for work now or in the future. And even that uncertainty would make it quite reasonable for the employer to refuse any consideration of relocation.

So it's just a standard redundancy, unless the company has policy otherwise. They need to consult with him, look at whether there are suitable alternatives, and if not he'd be served notice.

We are heading more and more stories of this happening. Even in UK companies. Because the only way that they can continue took access the single market and do business with many of their existing clients is to move operations to Europe. There isn't a substantial counter balance happening. Basically, Europe is a bigger market than the UK and many of our companies have no choice but to retain their markets in Europe by relocations.

hyubh

sangie595 wrote: »

We are heading more and more stories of this happening. Even in UK companies. Because the only way that they can continue took access the single market and do business with many of their existing clients is to move operations to Europe. There isn't a substantial counter balance happening. Basically, Europe is a bigger market than the UK and many of our companies have no choice but to retain their markets in Europe by relocations.

Not so what the Remainiac coda really added to the main body of your reply, to be honest! Should chrissy3634 pray to the 12 stars for forgiveness or something...?

sangie595

hyubh wrote: »

Not so what the Remainiac coda really added to the main body of your reply, to be honest! Should chrissy3634 pray to the 12 stars for forgiveness or something...?

You don't really know what my personal opinions are. And in any case, the matter is settled so it is irrelevant. So these are contextual facts. We are hearing more and more of these stories, and the reasons we are hearing them is because companies are looking to protect their markets. It is really irrelevant whether people were for or against leaving now. The practical application of that decision is causing job losses in the UK. In many cases those job losses are the only way that other jobs can be retained - Many British jobs are very dependant on us being able to continue to access the European market, which is why this is happening. Of course, there'll be an upturn in the economy and many more jobs when Trump delivers his much promised, but so far totally invisible, favourable new trade deals with the UK.....

So no, I am not arguing to remain and I am not putting an argument for doing so. I am pointing out the facts. They are facts whatever your position on this was or is. And there will be a lot more of these "facts" in the coming year.

hyubh

sangie595 wrote: »

You don't really know what my personal opinions are. And in any case, the matter is settled so it is irrelevant.

Indeed it is!

So these are contextual facts. We are hearing more and more of these stories, and the reasons we are hearing them is because companies are looking to protect their markets. It is really irrelevant whether people were for or against leaving now. The practical application of that decision is causing job losses in the UK. In many cases those job losses are the only way that other jobs can be retained - Many British jobs are very dependant on us being able to continue to access the European market, which is why this is happening. Of course, there'll be an upturn in the economy and many more jobs when Trump delivers his much promised, but so far totally invisible, favourable new trade deals with the UK.....

Blimey, your [STRIKE]personal opinions[/STRIKE] assessment of the facts of the matter really are obscure

chrissy3634

Thank you for all your replies

AstroTurtle

sangie595 wrote: »

You don't really know what my personal opinions are. And in any case, the matter is settled so it is irrelevant. So these are contextual facts. We are hearing more and more of these stories, and the reasons we are hearing them is because companies are looking to protect their markets. It is really irrelevant whether people were for or against leaving now. The practical application of that decision is causing job losses in the UK. In many cases those job losses are the only way that other jobs can be retained - Many British jobs are very dependant on us being able to continue to access the European market, which is why this is happening. Of course, there'll be an upturn in the economy and many more jobs when Trump delivers his much promised, but so far totally invisible, favourable new trade deals with the UK.....

So no, I am not arguing to remain and I am not putting an argument for doing so. I am pointing out the facts. They are facts whatever your position on this was or is. And there will be a lot more of these "facts" in the coming year.

"im not putting an arguement for doing so... so here's my arguement"

The person wanted a question about redundancy procedures.

You went straight for the brexit jugular of this is what you get.

How do you know it's a result of that job losses happened before Brexit too you know? or did you fancy a rant. :money:

Paul_DNAP

chrissy3634 wrote: »

My son received a phone call from HR just before the weekend to say his role was redundant

He has now been told his role has been transferred to an office in Europe ( same company) but he wasn't given the option to accept this position

He's gutted! Any advice please?

By phone? Ouch, that's harsh.
The only practical advice is that he'd better get his pencil sharpened and get to work on his CV and start the job hunt while working whatever notice they insist on. If they want him to train his successor he is quite within his rights to refuse because if his position is redundant how can there be a successor, but then it costs nothing to be nice and he may say that he will do it if it guarantees him a glowing reference.

tacpot12

While being told of your redundancy by phone may not be the normal way it is done, there are some advantages for both the employer and the employee.

Unfortunately, being made redundant is an experience that is pretty common, and so learning to respond positively to the announcement is a good thing. Your son may find a better job, and do so quickly. I was made redundant on three months notice, started job hunting in my last two weeks and got a job paying twice as much and started on the Monday after finishing with the last employer on the Friday! I had no loss of earning, doubled my salary and got £12,000 redundancy payout, so it is not necessarily a bad thing.

If your son is prepared to move to Europe, he should let HR know. They will generally assume that people will not want to move, but this could be a great career move, and if he learns the language who knows where it could lead.

silverwhistle

hyubh wrote: »

Indeed it is!

Blimey, your [STRIKE]personal opinions[/STRIKE] assessment of the facts of the matter really are obscure

My personal opinion is that a lump hammer hitting your leg will hurt. (Actually, this is based on experience). You appear to be of the opinion that you'll only accept that by experiencing a lump hammer against your leg.


So pray, do tell which part of Sangie's post you dispute. As one of the most helpful posters here I don't see any particular issue of fact where she is inaccurate.



From the facts here it does appear the company may not have followed consultation procedures. Is there a union involved?