Laid off over other members of staff who are still furloughed or offered other roles

alanflap

Like many of my other colleagues, I have been laid off due to the company not being able to afford to keep us on furlough. Nevertheless, there are still people in the same role as me still working, or still furloughed. I have questioned my employer about why they were selected over myself. and they have advised that it is because their clients and markets are showing more life than mine, which I can understand for most of the people still employed and working, however there is one girl who is still furloughed, recently new to the sales role and would be working predominantly in the same market as myself, yet she is on furlough. If her clients were getting in touch instead of mine, I would suspect that they would bring her back on flexi furlough but this is not the case. Before Covid I was performing better than she was as she was fairly new to the role so I don't understand why they have actually kept her on. Would you say this is illegal? 

Not only this, but members of staff in the same role as me have also been offered other roles in the company instead of being laid off. I again have questioned why they were offered these roles and why this wasn't advertised to the wider team. They said it's because of their skills, however I know full well that their skills do not exceed my skill set for the same role. I am not saying this in denial or to be big headed, but without going into too much detail I have been at the company much longer and just equally as qualified if not more qualified to do the tasks.

Essentially what I am asking, is whether a company has to legally go through a selection process when deciding who is laid off and who is kept on furlough? Or are they able to pick and choose? Are they also allowed to just move people into other roles without advertising to other members of the team or externally?

Furthermore, if I were to hand in my notice while being laid off, would I be entitled to my 4 weeks pay if I were to hand in my notice any other time? I understand that after 4 weeks of being laid off I can apply for redundancy, but I don't want to wait that long as my redundancy pay would probably equal my 4 weeks pay from handing in my notice. 

Just so you know, my role is an account manager.

Jeremy535897

If you are entitled to 4 weeks statutory redundancy, you would also be entitled to 4 weeks' paid notice.

If an employer elects to put any employees on furlough, the methods they use to select those on furlough need to comply with employment law, such as discrimination and equality, but your post does not indicate that these would be applicable.

Takmon

alanflap said:

Like many of my other colleagues, I have been laid off due to the company not being able to afford to keep us on furlough. Nevertheless, there are still people in the same role as me still working, or still furloughed. I have questioned my employer about why they were selected over myself. and they have advised that it is because their clients and markets are showing more life than mine, which I can understand for most of the people still employed and working, however there is one girl who is still furloughed, recently new to the sales role and would be working predominantly in the same market as myself, yet she is on furlough. If her clients were getting in touch instead of mine, I would suspect that they would bring her back on flexi furlough but this is not the case. Before Covid I was performing better than she was as she was fairly new to the role so I don't understand why they have actually kept her on. Would you say this is illegal? 

Not only this, but members of staff in the same role as me have also been offered other roles in the company instead of being laid off. I again have questioned why they were offered these roles and why this wasn't advertised to the wider team. They said it's because of their skills, however I know full well that their skills do not exceed my skill set for the same role. I am not saying this in denial or to be big headed, but without going into too much detail I have been at the company much longer and just equally as qualified if not more qualified to do the tasks.

Essentially what I am asking, is whether a company has to legally go through a selection process when deciding who is laid off and who is kept on furlough? Or are they able to pick and choose? Are they also allowed to just move people into other roles without advertising to other members of the team or externally?

Furthermore, if I were to hand in my notice while being laid off, would I be entitled to my 4 weeks pay if I were to hand in my notice any other time? I understand that after 4 weeks of being laid off I can apply for redundancy, but I don't want to wait that long as my redundancy pay would probably equal my 4 weeks pay from handing in my notice. 

Just so you know, my role is an account manager.

The simple answer is they will have gotten rid of you because they obviously prefer the other employees, no company would get rid of employees that they like and that perform well at their job so they must have some kind of issue with the way you work.

epm-84

alanflap said:

Just so you know, my role is an account manager.
...
however there is one girl who is still furloughed, recently new to the sales role and would be working predominantly in the same market as myself, yet she is on furlough.

The way a redundancy consultation process should take place is you should be told how many people are in the pool for redundancy.  If there are 12 account managers and the pool is less than 12 you should ask questions as to why.  

So does this girl have a different job title?  If she's a more junior team member that might be why she's being kept on - lower salary = affordable for the business.  At previous employers I saw one batch of redundancies affecting the more senior employers, it seemed the board preferred the idea of more heads and less experience over fewer heads and more experience. I also saw one batch where they removed everyone who wasn't a senior team member from the business, they obviously decided with only limited staff remaining having the experience was more than important than cutting payroll as far as possible.

Thrugelmir

If your redundancy is linked directly to the permanent loss of customers that you dealt with previously. Then this would be considered a reasonable selection criteria. 

When being made redundant it's understandable that on a personal level to question why me. When from the employers perspective it's simply how to make a rational decision in order to reduce headcount and operating costs. Whoever is selected is going to feel upset and consider the decision unjust.