Job Description - Outdated but still valid?

General_Grant

LornaToon said:

General_Grant said:

LornaToon said:

My job description is 11 years old and was never updated at the time of a restructure many years ago. In the description it states 'supervise junior staff'. I have never had to do this since the job description was created. I'm not against taking on supervision if I have to but as I now do umpteen other tasks not in the written description I'm overloaded with work as it is. With only 10 months to go until retirement I'm not looking for any skills to add to my CV. Can my employer impose this requirement on me, or is there any loophole I could use around it not being a requirement of my role for 11 years?

The root cause of this issue is that managers are wanting to off load line management responsibilities they have down to someone else to take on. Thanks for any advice you can give.

Does your employer operate an annual appraisal/review system? 

Was no job evaluation exercise undertaken at the time of the restructure?

Hi, it was a long time ago and I can only remember receiving a letter saying my job role was not affected. I have had an annual appraisal every year but this was never raised. The appraisals have mostly concentrated on aims and objectives.

So they didn't think your job would be any different.  They may have based your pay on the fact that the JD said you had supervisory responsibilities.

Too late now, but if a JD doesn't properly reflect the job done, then it should be discussed by job holder and appraiser.  Job holders should have been able to raise such things - but perhaps your employer thought otherwise.

gozaimasu

TELLIT01 said:

Redundancy, voluntary or otherwise, is only available if the job ceases to exist.  That certainly doesn't seem to be the situation the OP finds themself in.

I took it to mean that their job had ceased to exist since the job description is no longer valid and they are currently doing loads of tasks that are not in there, so their old job doesn't exist, but they've been doing a new one. Perhaps a loose interpretation of the situation which would be difficult to pull off in reality.

TELLIT01

gozaimasu said:

TELLIT01 said:

Redundancy, voluntary or otherwise, is only available if the job ceases to exist.  That certainly doesn't seem to be the situation the OP finds themself in.

I took it to mean that their job had ceased to exist since the job description is no longer valid and they are currently doing loads of tasks that are not in there, so their old job doesn't exist, but they've been doing a new one. Perhaps a loose interpretation of the situation which would be difficult to pull off in reality.

With only 10 months to retirement it would be a simple matter for the company to return the job to what is stated on the JD, but because of the catch all I referred to earlier there is no need even to do that.  It would seem that the OP hasn't complained over the past years about the changes to the JD so grounds to do so now are tenuous at best.

General_Grant

gozaimasu said:

TELLIT01 said:

Redundancy, voluntary or otherwise, is only available if the job ceases to exist.  That certainly doesn't seem to be the situation the OP finds themself in.

I took it to mean that their job had ceased to exist since the job description is no longer valid and they are currently doing loads of tasks that are not in there, so their old job doesn't exist, but they've been doing a new one. Perhaps a loose interpretation of the situation which would be difficult to pull off in reality.

And even if their "old job" didn't exist, before dismissing someone on the grounds of redundancy an employer should use their best endeavours to find another suitable position for the employee.  It obviously could do that as the OP has been doing the "alternative" successfully for some time.

TBagpuss

The short answer is that they can require you to supervise - it's a reasonable instruction. And if you are getting close to retirement then it makes sense for the to be looking at forward planning to having you train/supervise people who will then beabe to take on some of your work is both sensible and reasonable.

However, if they are expecting you to supervise in additional to what you are already doing, and that creates an unreasonable workload then address that issue - ask them which of the other things you do they want you to leave in order to spend the time needed for supervision, which deadlines get pushed back, or who you pass the other tasks on t to enable you to o the supervision.

Or, as a first step, simply say that you don't feel it is one of your strengths, and you are already at full stretch, and say that while you will of course do it if instructed to it will mean that you are not able to cover as much of the other tasks, so you are checking in with them to ask which to prioritise and which can be passed on to someone else or left un done.