removed content as contain identifiable info

Thrugelmir

happypie said:

adamp87 said:

On the information you have gave above I don’t see how it is race related. It appears just from that information you’ve deduced what’s perhaps different between the team & made a huge assumption. 

Someone whom is senior will always receive more leeway, & to be fair if you are constantly critiquing someone above you or whom is in a leadership capacity over you - you are causing a problem and will be seen as unprofessional.

Sometimes there is a need to do so, but as you’ve stated you’ve had many arguments & critiquing his code quality to be blunt, I reckon you’ve seemed like a hassle/nuisance to be honest. 

Edit: Realise that sounds a bit harsh but it’s just based off the above. Workplaces are political & you choose your battles. Constantly arguing with a superior for the most part isn’t wise. There’s more succinct ways to get concerns across.

Yes thats what happened, they fired me because of constant conflicts.
Is that purely your interpretation of events? 
However they told me I am being made redundant because there is no work for me.
Has a redundancy process been followed? Are you the only person impacted within the organisation? 

My point is that they have not given right reason for redundancy and hence its unfair dismissal.
Was a matrix used to identify criteria and was this shared with you? 

Some background on how the process was followed would be useful. 

CKhalvashi

happypie said:

General_Grant said:

I would expect the employer to have to show that none of their employees could do the work being undertaken by the contractor.  To avoid redundancy (which is what they are supposed to do if possible) they should consider the skills of their employees rather than continue using a contractor (who would not qualify for redundancy pay) nor should they include the contractor in the pool of workers for redeployment

Thats great point, I didn't think of that.
Contractor is cto (chief technical officer) and I was senior developer, however I could definitely do what he was doing and in a better way, imo.

Your other points have been covered adequately that there's no point me adding comment to them, but this is definitely not the right attitude to have in this situation.

I've had a meeting with a co-owner of a venture (nothing to do with tech) this evening who has experience in this particular field, and while it may be my idea from spotting inefficiencies in existing business models, my business plan and largely my money funding it, there is definitely nothing to be gained by not listening to each other and adapting everything as necessary. My expertise is making things happen to bring new services to market, hers is 10 years doing work in this field, albeit in a slightly different role, working from the ground up.

Never believe that you can do a job you haven't done better than someone who has, as it won't go down well at tribunal level.

MattMattMattUK

From reading your posts it does not sound like racism, but that you were a difficult, combatative and potentially disruptive employee with an attitude problem relating to your seniors within the company, the processes the company operated under trying to rally junior employees against both their own manager and senior management. 

If you are as good as you think you are then earn the recognition by the quality of your work, what you seem to be doing is demanding that your opinion is valued more than someone several layers of management above you, fermenting discent amongst junior employees and claiming that the company is racist because they promoted someone who was more senior and had been there to longer to CTO on the basis that the other person happened to be White.

If I were in their position I would have been looking to get rid of you.

Thrugelmir

happypie said:

This company had an office in another country (India). There they had people with exact same title and role as me. They didn't keep those people in redundacy pool. In consulation meeting when I asked about it, they replied that that company (india office) is a separate entity so its completely different company. However we all were working on same product, together.
Do I have any strong argument here?

None at all. Relocating work to a cheaper part of the world is unfortunately nothing new. 

lisyloo

happypie said:h

how can you have evidence for it? racism is something you feel, you experience. nobody tell that we are promoting him or trusting him because he is white.

An example of evidence is a person of colour being told no hotel room is available whilst a white person is given a room.
I think we are agreeing though that soft skills are highly subjective and technical skills are somewhat subjective (although certain things like exam scores, number of bugs, SLAs etc. Are quantitiative).
if you agree it’s very hard to have evidence then how do you think you can win any case?
I have no idea whether there is discrimination or not. If there is then you have my sympathy but one has to work out which battles to fight as I just don’t think this one is winnable.

lisyloo

happypie said:

This company had an office in another country (India). There they had people with exact same title and role as me. They didn't keep those people in redundacy pool. In consulation meeting when I asked about it, they replied that that company (india office) is a separate entity so its completely different company. However we all were working on same product, together.
Do I have any strong argument here?

If you are willing to do the job at Indian salary rates with Indian office costs I.e. in India, then yes you have a case.
if you want to stay in the uk on a uk salary then no you do not.

lincroft1710

Do remember 2 things about going to an employment tribunal.

1. Win your case and any future prospective employer will be wary of you and see you as a troublemaker.

2. Lose your case and any future prospective employer will be extremely wary of you and see you as a vexatious troublemaker.

Indigo_and_Violet

Being made redundant is always difficult so I can see why you're upset. I'm wondering what you're hoping to achieve by taking your employers to a tribunal? As I see it, outcomes could be:
- Getting your job back
- Getting an additional payout
- Making sure they don't repeat what you see as discriminatory behaviour
For option 1, it doesn't seem that you like the management or strategic direction of the company. Do you really want to go back? For option 2, my understanding is that the job market remains strong for most software professionals. Are you sure it wouldn't be easier just to get a new job at a company with a better fit and earn money through a salary rather than a payout? Going to tribunal can be a long and difficult process. For option 3, I can understand why you would want to address it, but so far nothing you've described seems like evidence of direct or indirect race discrimination. You would need to evidence one particularly race of employees being treated differently. This might be directly (e.g black employees being paid less) or indirectly (e.g. important business meetings only being carried out a pub where muslim employees might not be comfortable). From what you have written it doesn't seem like you have evidence your dissatisfaction or dismissal are linked to your race. At the very least, it seems like there are plausible alternatives (criticising colleagues, being the only Senior Developer in the company, not being able to quickly take on high-level challenges). If you want to go to tribunal then it might be worth having an appointment with an employment solicitor and talking about what sort of evidence would be needed to make a successful claim.