Constructive dismissal

Rumbelina

Hi,

I've read through a lot of the posts on here and seen some great advice so hoping you can help.

I'm in the process of going through ET with a former employer for constructive dismissal, currently waiting for ET3 response.

A brief overview:

Employed for more than 2 yrs, originally employed as a manager, promoted to area manager.

Company was acquired (share acquisition, TUPE didn't apply) which resulted in a restructure. Area manager role no longer existed.

Was put through a process (not put on consultation) which resulted in a manager role.

Same salary, significantly diminished responsibility and status.

Raised a number of times that I should've been put onto consultation, employer said 'two people, two jobs so not a redundancy situation'

Following this I had indicated I would resign and claim constructive dismissal as the correct process wasn't followed, I was then promised another role that would not result in diminished responsibility or status. Over the next 3 months I consistently chased for confirmation of the role and responsibilities (have a number of emails to demonstrate this) before it became clear after a specific act (the last straw) that this was not the case)

I resigned, but also went through the company grievance procedure including appeal, the company maintain it wasn't a redundancy situation because I was on the same salary.

My question is around the diminished responsibility and and whether that is clear grounds for redundancy, and, if that is the case what will I need to produce at tribunal to aid my case?

I have a number of emails and texts discussing the new role, I also have an amendment to my original contract congratulating me on my promotion to area manager and another amendment to my contract (which I rejected) to amend it back to manager.

Any advice gratefully received!

Dox

To suggest that what has happened to you may be 'clear grounds for redundancy' rather misses the point at issue. Constructive dismissal is extremely hard to prove, particularly where you are given a role with the same salary and benefits, albeit lower status and less responsibility. You will need to demonstrate that your former employer's actions were so unreasonable that you had absolutely no choice but to quit - and from your post, you are saying that you threatened to resign and claim constructive dismissal simply because what you believe to be the correct process wasn't followed. Putting it like that certainly won't help your case, because the failure to follow a process isn't what matters; it is the outcome that is important, so focus on that.

getmore4less

What was your case throughout the grievance process?

Rumbelina

I was maybe a little brief, my resignation came as a result of an incorrectly followed process and 3 months of false promises causing stress, humiliation and a breakdown of trust between me and my employer.

The grievance consisted of the above - as in, incorrect process followed (there were other people in a similar situation that were put onto consultation and given the option for redundancy, there was also someone in the same role as me that wasn't made to go into a lower role) and some other complaints on general practice - inappropriate comments by HRD - however for the ET1 I focused only on the breakdown of trust following the incorrect process resulting in a role with diminished responsibility and status and treatment thereafter

Blatchford

If I understand your post correctly there were no longer any area manager roles for either of the people involved, so you both got other jobs on the same pay and conditions, so your only objection is that you didn't have the status of a job that no longer existed anyway, so you found that humiliating. If that is the basis of your claim I wouldn't hold my breath on the outcome. For many years now tribunals have accepted that cuts in pay and conditions are reasonable and fair when the alternative is having no job, and you resigned because an employer wouldn't let you have a job that didn't exist but didn't change your pay and conditions. Not an argument I'd want to put to a tribunal. Based on what you are saying here the company have a sound defence.

Rumbelina

No sorry, there is still an area manager in the business. The person they put into the '2 people 2 jobs' was a manager from another part of the business.

getmore4less

From what you have said you have missed of the key criteria that should have been raised that the job was not a suitable alternative and that you were redundant.

I think you will have difficulty getting that through an ET as not a suitable alternative.

Company was acquired (share acquisition, TUPE didn't apply) which resulted in a restructure. Area manager role no longer existed.

Was put through a process (not put on consultation) which resulted in a manager role.

What was the process how long did it take.

You may find that that was sufficient to count as consultation for your role/alternative, if there was nothing much to discuss.

What steps did you take to consult, it is a two way process you should have engaged as soon as the process started.

That leaves the promises that did not materialize.

Business needs meant there was nothing suitable during that period.

Rumbelina

I was called into a meeting to tell me my role no longer existed, at that stage I asked whether I was going to be put onto consultation and the response was no, because there are 2 people and 2 jobs. I had to interview and was selected for one of the roles, this took around 1.5 weeks. I didn't proactively apply and was clear throughout that as my role no longer existed I believed it to be a redundancy situation.

I appreciate the same salary (although earning potential lower as lower OTE) aspect but was under the impression that significant diminished responsibility would be reason enough to discount that as a reasonable alternative?

getmore4less

Any consultation period started at that first meeting

Should have raised that it was not a suitable alternative at the time and started the process to object to your appointment to that new post

IT looks like the outcome of any change in the process would have been the same

Trying to claim over 3 months later it was not suitable and the process was flawed is a bit late as ET claims time out at 3 months less a day from the event.


That leaves you with the promises to find something else and not being fulfilled.

if you want to pursue this you need to be paying for employment legal advice if you don't want it thrown out.

What is your union saying?

Rumbelina

Hi, I'm not in a union unfortunately.

I did raise the fact that I did not believe it to be a suitable alternative, at the same time as still challenging the process. At that time I was told that I wouldn't suffer a loss in responsibility as they had another role that I could do (hence the 3 month delay) .. within that time I have a number of emails and texts to show I was chasing and confirming what had been discussed.

I have taken advice but as I have a new job if this was to progress the reward wouldn't be huge and whilst I want to take this further out of principal I do not want to end up out of pocket.

It was an ongoing situation from the initial conversation to my resignation which was triggered when it became very clear that the promised role did not exist.

nicechap

Rumbelina wrote: »

Hi,

I've read through a lot of the posts on here and seen some great advice so hoping you can help.

I'm in the process of going through ET with a former employer for constructive dismissal, currently waiting for ET3 response.

A brief overview:

Employed for more than 2 yrs, originally employed as a manager, promoted to area manager.

Company was acquired (share acquisition, TUPE didn't apply) which resulted in a restructure. Area manager role no longer existed.

Was put through a process (not put on consultation) which resulted in a manager role.

Same salary, significantly diminished responsibility and status.

Raised a number of times that I should've been put onto consultation, employer said 'two people, two jobs so not a redundancy situation'

Following this I had indicated I would resign and claim constructive dismissal as the correct process wasn't followed, I was then promised another role that would not result in diminished responsibility or status. Over the next 3 months I consistently chased for confirmation of the role and responsibilities (have a number of emails to demonstrate this) before it became clear after a specific act (the last straw) that this was not the case)

I resigned, but also went through the company grievance procedure including appeal, the company maintain it wasn't a redundancy situation because I was on the same salary.

My question is around the diminished responsibility and and whether that is clear grounds for redundancy, and, if that is the case what will I need to produce at tribunal to aid my case?

I have a number of emails and texts discussing the new role, I also have an amendment to my original contract congratulating me on my promotion to area manager and another amendment to my contract (which I rejected) to amend it back to manager.

Any advice gratefully received!

Rumbelina wrote: »

I was maybe a little brief, my resignation came as a result of an incorrectly followed process and 3 months of false promises causing stress, humiliation and a breakdown of trust between me and my employer.

The grievance consisted of the above - as in, incorrect process followed (there were other people in a similar situation that were put onto consultation and given the option for redundancy, there was also someone in the same role as me that wasn't made to go into a lower role) and some other complaints on general practice - inappropriate comments by HRD - however for the ET1 I focused only on the breakdown of trust following the incorrect process resulting in a role with diminished responsibility and status and treatment thereafter

Rumbelina wrote: »

No sorry, there is still an area manager in the business. The person they put into the '2 people 2 jobs' was a manager from another part of the business.

Rumbelina wrote: »

I was called into a meeting to tell me my role no longer existed, at that stage I asked whether I was going to be put onto consultation and the response was no, because there are 2 people and 2 jobs. I had to interview and was selected for one of the roles, this took around 1.5 weeks. I didn't proactively apply and was clear throughout that as my role no longer existed I believed it to be a redundancy situation.

I appreciate the same salary (although earning potential lower as lower OTE) aspect but was under the impression that significant diminished responsibility would be reason enough to discount that as a reasonable alternative?

It is not at all clear what the basis of your claim is, ETs are very easy to get wrong based on reading a little bit of internet advice and without help from a union or legal professional, and even then, they are not immune from making mistakes - here’s one doing an ET on their own who didn’t realise they had to submit their own witness statement.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6043678/work-tribunal-with-no-witness-statements

About 3% of ET claims are awarded to claimants, and most are for a few thousand pounds.

At one point you say the area manager role was done away with but later say another area manager is still there.

So, what time period elapsed between resigning and making a claim? Are you currently unemployed or working for another company (this will affect any award made)?
Have you been though ACAS yet and if so what what offered?
Did you raise the consultation process in your grievance? (I guessing you did and the company addressed that.)
Being given less responsibility and/ or status can be evidence of bullying - you don’t appear to have mentioned this - and with a difference in treatement because of a protected characteristic, would support such a claim, but again, you don’t appear to be claiming for a protected characteristic.
So, an ET would look at what is normal in your industry, and many places redeploy people on protected salaries for a defined period (say 12 or 24 months) but you appear to have it indefinitely.

So your claim seems to be either one of perceived entitlement (I should have got redundancy) or pride (less status). I can’t see you having much luck with either arguement.