Restructure and redundancy

ianflying

Hi 

Due to a contract win My employer is making our roles redundant but offering new roles that are substantially the same in terms of roles and responsibilities however titled differently. They have offered these roles to other staff members working on the contract as development opportunities. Surely these roles should be ringfenced for those who are at a risk of redundancy

Thanks

TELLIT01

Substantially the same is the problem for the OP.  Restructuring and moving responsibilities between roles does mean that the original roles are no longer in existence - that is basically what redundancy is.  There is no requirement to ringfence new roles for those at risk.

Devongardener

Have you been made redundant formally, with the employer following the statutory process of notice etc?   

If so I think you can challenge the legality of redundancy as they still need employees to do essentially the same role but with a different job title,  the position isn’t redundant.

It’s worth contacting ACAS for advice.

EnPointe

OP  very unclear  as to the contractural situation  with the work they  appear to be currently engaged in  , who the new  contract won is with  and so on 

General_Grant

ianflying said:

Hi 

Due to a contract win My employer is making our roles redundant but offering new roles that are substantially the same in terms of roles and responsibilities however titled differently. They have offered these roles to other staff members working on the contract as development opportunities. Surely these roles should be ringfenced for those who are at a risk of redundancy

Thanks

Sounds like workforce was one group (of say 3 employees) and another group (say another 4).
They don't have work for 7 people and so all 7 are actually at risk.  That is the redundancy pool.
By offering the "development" opportunities, they are "bumping" employees round and that is lawful.

That is a fairly simple explanation that the company could use.  It may well be more complicated than that but there is no need to "ringfence" (unless any of the affected people are pregnant/on maternity leave).

Marcon

ianflying said:

Hi 

Due to a contract win My employer is making our roles redundant but offering new roles that are substantially the same in terms of roles and responsibilities however titled differently. They have offered these roles to other staff members working on the contract as development opportunities. Surely these roles should be ringfenced for those who are at a risk of redundancy

Thanks

Not clear from your post whether these 'other staff members....' would be made redundant if they were not offered these new roles. Please clarify.

ianflying

Hi 

The other managers who currently sit under the account team are at no risk of redundancy. I queried again with HR and they have said these are new roles and have to be advertised to the wider business Thank you

ianflying

TELLIT01 said:

Substantially the same is the problem for the OP.  Restructuring and moving responsibilities between roles does mean that the original roles are no longer in existence - that is basically what redundancy is.  There is no requirement to ringfence new roles for those at risk.

Hi thanks, but what if the new roles are essentially the the same roles and responsibilities as those put at risk but titled differently 

DE_612183

are the new roles the same pay rate?

what is thye employer gaining by making people redundant ( costs money ) then employ new people (costs money )?

General_Grant

If they have a workforce of, say, 20 people but believe you can run the business with 15 people then 5 people are no longer required to do the work available.  There is too little work for all 20 to be employed.

An employer can bump people round in the organisation, they don't have to ring fence jobs to exclude those of the 15 who could do the job even if they are not currently doing it.