Redundancy queries

BlueDaisy

I would like to get the forum's thoughts on the following situation if possible...

I am the general manager of a small agricultural propagation company. We employ 14 people full time and seasonal agency staff as needed. The company is owned by a single individual who owns several companies. He employs one Group Finance director.
On March 24th The owner and the FD arrived to make an announcement. They told everyone that due to lack of orders they were restructuring and wanted to decrease the workforce to 6 people and concentrate on one revenue stream only. Because they were both going on holiday on 3rd April they wanted to have the 'consultancy' period over and done with before then. The FD duly interviewed each person individually on 28th and 29th March. On 31st March they told those who were getting made redundant and those who were keeping their jobs. They actually opted to keep 7 people not the 6 that was initially announced.
Our structure is such that I am the GM, there is a lab manager and a greenhouse manager below me. Everyone else is 'workers'.
At my consultation I got told there would be one person in overall charge of the lab and one in overall charge of the greenhouse. I did not contend for the lab job (a position I was promoted from 5 years ago) as I did not want to put the current lab manager out of a job.
On 31st March I got my redundancy notice and the lab manager was told she was keeping her job, and would be expected to take on extra responsibilities (ie parts of my job).
Everyone has been working since then - just trying to get through a stressful situation as best we can.
Yesterday, the FD came on site as he was back from holiday. He spoke with me and with the Greenhouse manager (who is now in overall charge of the facility) separately throughout the day.
After lunch he came to my office to tell me he was about to have a meeting with the lab manager and it wasn't going to be good news.
I tried to tell him that they would be crazy to ler her go - she already can do parts of my job, she knows how to do what almost everyone else will be doing, and most imporatntly she is the only one who knows how to organise and schedule work in the lab. He just kept saying they had looked at all the skills, that they had to get down to only 6 people and she had to go. One of the people who is staying was taught by the LM how to do what they currently do, so the LM by definition can do everything that worker does and more...
It just doesn't seem to make any sense at all.
Everyone else at the company is over 50 except the LM, who is 30, getting married in July and talking of starting a family. The owner of the company knew this. 
Added to this the orders are not decreasing, we have made a £100,000 profit each of the last 2 years on a turnover of less than £1M, and were on target to make a profit again this year.
I know it's one persons company and if they want to change things they can, but this doesn't make any sense and feels very personal against the 2 female managers.
Would there be grounds to take them to court? Would there be any benefit?

lincroft1710

If the company feel they no longer need a lab manager, then they are perfectly entitled to make her redundant.


It doesn't matter if the company is making a profit, they can still restructure and make jobs redundant. Similarly the LM's personal circumstances will have no effect on whether or not her position should be made redundant,


If an employer is taken to a Tribunal by an employee in such circumstances, the employer would undoubtedly use the  reason "business needs" for making 2 positions redundant and a Tribunal may well accept this

BlueDaisy

Hmm I'm surprised. I know there are hardly any rules around redundancies from small companies but I thought that at least the 'business case' had to be factual.
Similarly I didn't think a consultation could be finished, a person get told they are keeping their job and expected to take on more responsibilites, then 2 weeks later without any knowledge that their job was at risk and with no further consultation they could then be made redundant.
I'm also sure that, despite your statement to the contrary, there will be many instances where an employees personal circumstances are taken into account when redundancy decisions are getting made, whether they should be or not, and whether they are admitted to or not.

lincroft1710

As there are less than 20 staff being made redundant, there are no set  rules to follow about consultation. It would have been sensible for the employer to have had further consultation with the LM, but it is not mandatory.


If employers wish to take employees' personal situations into account then that is their choice, there is no legal requirement for them to do so. However it could be seen to be unfair if a more qualified and better performing employee is made redundant just because another employee's personal circumstances persuaded the employer to keep them on


Tribunals rarely query "business needs". Employers don't always tell employees the whole story. The company may have made a profit over the last 2 years, but they may have realised this isn't going to continue. Or it could be that as the owner has other companies, he may want to downsize this operation and concentrate on the other companies. His choice entirely. Just think of all the well known High St retailers who have wholly or partially closed down their retail outlets but were still in profit. And don't get me started on the High St banks wholesale slaughter of their branches.

Even if the LM thought her redundancy was unfair, went to an Employment Tribunal and actually won, she would only get a relatively small monetary award and certainly wouldn't get her job back.