Is this fair?

Sc80

Hi, 
Our department are deleting a management post. That managers section will see their work and staff divided up between the rest of us managers as follows:
Manager A will have work and staff from the deleted managers section added to her post, but as she is on mat leave at the moment she will be retained without interview etc
Manager B won't face redundancy (no at risk notice etc) but will have additional responsibility from the deleted role and take on additional staff from the deleted section to deal with that.
Manager C will take on additional responsibility and staff from the deleted section, but will be put at risk and have to go against the Manager in the deleted post in a competitive interview.

I feel that it is unfair that Manager B avoids all this redundancy malarkey, but Manager C has to fight to keep the role, and go against the manager in the deleted post. It also feels unfair that Manager A gets slotted into the role without considering the others (on the basis that she has a statutory right). Whilst I agree with the protection of her due to mat leave, it still feels as though it results in unfair practice for the two fighting for the last post.

You might have guessed that I am Manager C. So I might be too close to the situation to see it clearly. What do you lot think??

JReacher1

There must be a difference with manager B which explains why they’re not included in the redundancy pool. Otherwise it’s not a fair process. 

tacpot12

You might ask for a (consultation) meeting where you can tell HR that you consider the process unfair for the reason JReacher1 has proposed, and where you can ask why your employer wants to make this change. Try to get a detailed understanding of the rationale for the change, and whose mind is behind it. If you can do this, you stand a chance to influence the company to take a different route if you can think of one that they haven't considered. 

If the reason for the change is just to reduce costs, I think I would try to discuss with the other managers (who are all affected) including the one on maternity leave, whether they would be open to an alternative arrangement e.g. a pay cut in exchange for not having to have new responsiblities. if you approach the manager on maternity leave, you need to be very careful to do so an a private basis - if she doesn't want to discuss it with you, you would have to move forward without her input.

I doubt this will save enough money, but there are other advantanges to having three managers - I've always thought three was a good number for covering critial operational work because it allows for one person to be on planned leave and for the business to still cope if another is taken ill. 

Of course, you may not want to work for less money, when prices are rising so fast, so redundant and the opporunity to take a better paid job somewhere else might suit you better. (I was made redundant three times, the first time I left and got a job paying more money and I got the redundacy payment, the second time I persuaded the employer that it had miscalculated, and they ended up retaining eight staff including myself, and the third time, I left and retired - I was about to retire anyway so the employer paid for two months of additional retirement! Redundancy is not always a bad thing!) 

NBLondon

Reading the other thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6423101/up-against-someone-on-maternity-leave#latest  tells us that A and C are in the same role.

As JReacher says - B is perhaps not.  Therefore it's valid for B not to be in line for redundancy - even if they are taking on some of the work.

If A, B and C are the same job title and description - then there's a possible challenge on fairness of B not having to re-apply.