Appreciate this is a bit random but!

rosierunner

Hi all,  apologies if this is the wrong forum for this. This is my situation, I have worked for my employer for the best part of 30 years, I am within 10 months of retiring.  The company is restructuring and now I have been told that I have to apply for my own job and be interviewed!  There are apparently three of us in the 'pool' for two jobs.  There is no redundancy on the table which I can't get my head around?  The job description is 98% of the job I do now I would say.  I really don't understand why they are putting me through this, why not wait until next year when I retire to appoint to this post and then there will be 2 people for two jobs?   My performance reviews every year are excellent.   I have spoken to my boss and told him I am very anxious about going through a formal interview process at this late stage in my career and I'm losing sleep worrying about it.   Although sympathetic, I'm told that procedure has to be followed to ensure no come back on the company in the future?  Does this situation seem bizarre?  Do I have any choice but to go through with it?  I don't suppose I do.  Very worried about the 'underlying' reasons for this.  Any advice appreciated.

pramsay13

They will not continue to pay someone for 10 months just to be nice, even a staff member with 30 years of service.
If the reasons for the restructuring are genuine then you will just have to do this.
If you are not successful there will be redundancy payment which will probably take you almost to your retirement date, so point this out to them and ask for voluntary redundancy to save the hassle.

tacpot12

If they were making more people redundant, they would be forced to consult on the redundancies which means you could then suggest that they wait 10 months. However they don't have to accept your suggestion, but there is nothing to stop you making the suggestion to them. However I expect that they cannot afford to wait 10 months to eliminate the cost from the business.

They will be making you redundant if they decide that you are the person in the pool that they don't want to keep. However, they don't want to offer voluntary redundancies because it will cost them more to make you redundant than someone who has worked for less time. You will receive a statutory amount of redundancy pay - with your length of service you will receive 30 weeks pay - plus any additional redundancy pay they want in order to sweeten your departure - so you will be paid for at least seven months.  

I doubt there are any underlying reasons for this other than they need to reduce costs. And I doubt your pension will be affected by much as you will only be nine months away from retirement if they do select you for redundancy (because you have worked for them for more than 12 years you are entitled to 12 week notice, or pay in lieu of notice so your pension will only be short of 9 months of service, not 10.

I don't think there is any risk is that they will try to dismiss you rather than making you redundant, but if they do, you can take them to an Employment Tribunal as they will have dismissed you unfairly. 

The best way for them to save money is to keep you on, and make one of your colleagues redundant (assuming they have less service than you do). It is in their financial interest to employ you until your retirement date - for the reasons explained above it will cost them the same amount of money to make you redundant as will to employ you until your retirement date, so they are very likely to want to give you one of the jobs that is available. I wouldn't worry about being interviewed for your own job. The worst that can happen is that they make you redundant and you get to retire 10 months early, with very little downside. 

AskAsk

i wouldn't get so worked up about it as you are only 10 months to retirement anyway, and by the time they get round to failing you (if this is indeed the case) then you would be only a few months away from retirement. 

take it easy and just follow the crowd.  dot the i and cross the t and yawn.  it will all be over soon and you can enjoy your retirement in peace and say good bye to having to work ever again 

Comms69

More likely 45 weeks. 

rosierunner

pramsay13 said:

They will not continue to pay someone for 10 months just to be nice, even a staff member with 30 years of service.
If the reasons for the restructuring are genuine then you will just have to do this.
If you are not successful there will be redundancy payment which will probably take you almost to your retirement date, so point this out to them and ask for voluntary redundancy to save the hassle.

thank you but no voluntary redundancy on offer and the CEO has made it clear that there will be no compulsory redundancies.  so will have to pay me for the last 10 months anyway,  Just doesn't make sense to put me through this

AskAsk

rosierunner said:

pramsay13 said:

They will not continue to pay someone for 10 months just to be nice, even a staff member with 30 years of service.
If the reasons for the restructuring are genuine then you will just have to do this.
If you are not successful there will be redundancy payment which will probably take you almost to your retirement date, so point this out to them and ask for voluntary redundancy to save the hassle.

thank you but no voluntary redundancy on offer and the CEO has made it clear that there will be no compulsory redundancies.  so will have to pay me for the last 10 months anyway,  Just doesn't make sense to put me through this

i think it is more that they can not discriminate and show favoritism.  just because you are near to retirement does not exclude you from the process.  they probably realise it is just a paper exercise as you wouldn't care anyway.  

pramsay13

rosierunner said:

thank you but no voluntary redundancy on offer and the CEO has made it clear that there will be no compulsory redundancies.  so will have to pay me for the last 10 months anyway,  Just doesn't make sense to put me through this

if your job is being removed you will be given redundancy payment, there must be if they are reducing 3 roles down to 2. 
There is no way around that for them as an employer.
The only choice they have is who to make redundant out of the 3 of you.
For reasons mentioned above it will be cheaper for them to make the most recent employee redundant and keep you in post, but as that will only be for 10 months it might be easier for them to make you redundant (and pay you 45 weeks pay).

rosierunner

tacpot12 said:

The worst that can happen is that they make you redundant and you get to retire 10 months early, with very little downside. 

Thank you I will hang onto this thought!  Hard to see beyond the current situation at the moment.

rosierunner

pramsay13 said:

There is no way around that for them as an employer.
The only choice they have is who to make redundant out of the 3 of you.
For reasons mentioned above it will be cheaper for them to make the most recent employee redundant and keep you in post, but as that will only be for 10 months it might be easier for them to make you redundant (and pay you 45 weeks pay).

Thanks I wish they would.  I'll let you know what happens

Savvy_Sue

It might be that they are hoping to 'scare' one of the younger two into seeking alternative employment, but voluntary or not, unless someone resigns before their redundancy date, payment will be due!