Is this redundancy?

Nebulous2

There is currently a three tier structure: manager, senior, worker. A regrading exercise has taken place- with workers being uprated to the same pay as seniors. This means seniors will lose the additional responsibilities they have and become workers, with no financial detriment. Effectively the role will no longer exist. 

Is is that a redundancy scenario? Would they need to accept a new contract as worker? What options do they have? 

JReacher1

Same pay but less responsibility. Seems a reasonably good deal. 

I don’t think it’s a redundancy situation 

TELLIT01

As I understand it redundancy only applies if there are fewer jobs, not a change in job title or responsibilities.

Dox

Nebulous2 said:

There is currently a three tier structure: manager, senior, worker. A regrading exercise has taken place- with workers being uprated to the same pay as seniors. This means seniors will lose the additional responsibilities they have and become workers, with no financial detriment. Effectively the role will no longer exist. 

Is is that a redundancy scenario? Would they need to accept a new contract as worker? What options do they have? 

Even if it is redundancy (which doesn't sound likely), they have been offered entirely reasonably alternative employment. Unlikely a new contract is needed, but quite possible. Options? Accept it or resign, but there won't be any scope for claiming constructive dismissal.

ssparks2003

Sounds like win-win to me.

Nebulous2

Thanks very much. It has happened to a friend of mine and she thought her post was redundant. It’s not about money. She enjoys the variety in her role and doesn’t want to lose that. She spends about two-thirds of her time on-shift and about a third planning and organising rotas. She doesn’t want to go back to being on-shift all the time. 

lincroft1710

Nebulous2 said:

Thanks very much. It has happened to a friend of mine and she thought her post was redundant. It’s not about money. She enjoys the variety in her role and doesn’t want to lose that. She spends about two-thirds of her time on-shift and about a third planning and organising rotas. She doesn’t want to go back to being on-shift all the time. 

Then her only option is to resign

Nebulous2

lincroft1710 said:

Nebulous2 said:

Thanks very much. It has happened to a friend of mine and she thought her post was redundant. It’s not about money. She enjoys the variety in her role and doesn’t want to lose that. She spends about two-thirds of her time on-shift and about a third planning and organising rotas. She doesn’t want to go back to being on-shift all the time. 

Then her only option is to resign

Thanks - I think that is very likely, though it clearly isn't my call.

Ditzy_Mitzy

I suspect this sort of thing is going to become quite common, in straitened economic circumstances the obvious cost saver is going to be a bonfire of middle management.  The difficulty this presents to the friend is a loss of status, rather than a loss of income.  Once one has obtained a supervisory or senior position, it's easier to get another one.  On the other hand, if one isn't in such a position, it's difficult to get into one and, presumably, also tricky to regain such a status when it has been lost. 
I understand why it's difficult for her and it's certainly not a 'win-win' in terms of career progression.  One could be excused for looking at it as a de-facto demotion.  The problem is that legislation tends to cover tangible things such as pay and contract matters, rather than the intangible stuff of job titles and actual duties in the workplace, providing of course said duties fall under the employee's contract.  Companies are, as far as I am aware, allowed to do this sort of thing.

Brynsam

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

I suspect this sort of thing is going to become quite common, in straitened economic circumstances the obvious cost saver is going to be a bonfire of middle management.  The difficulty this presents to the friend is a loss of status, rather than a loss of income.  Once one has obtained a supervisory or senior position, it's easier to get another one.  On the other hand, if one isn't in such a position, it's difficult to get into one and, presumably, also tricky to regain such a status when it has been lost. 
I understand why it's difficult for her and it's certainly not a 'win-win' in terms of career progression.  One could be excused for looking at it as a de-facto demotion.  The problem is that legislation tends to cover tangible things such as pay and contract matters, rather than the intangible stuff of job titles and actual duties in the workplace, providing of course said duties fall under the employee's contract.  Companies are, as far as I am aware, allowed to do this sort of thing.

Companies aren't going to have much option other than to 'do this sort of thing'. The crumb of comfort is that other potential employers will be more interested in what OP's friend has done during their career to date as opposed to the current job title.