Redundancy Issue

LinLui

emploee_77 said:

LinLui said:

emploee_77 said:

LinLui said:

There is nothing in that to suggest, from what you say, that there isn't a genuine redundancy, more that it has been handled very badly. But the choices are that you either accept - there is no way that you would be likely to gain that much even if you went to a tribunal and won; or that you decide to fight the redunancy altogether - and if you did that, do you genuinely want to work there after this?

Personally I would take it provided it is all in writing and agreed. 

Myt two areas to question would be - what if you were offered your dream job next month (or before the end of the year)? What happens to your redudancy pay? Because technically, in law, you could lose it all if you obtain another job too soon.

And (although this is for you) what if they withdraw the redundancy - because they could, and there is nothing that you could do about it if they did. 

The redundancies are genuine as the company is going through a restructuring. The issue is that I should have been afforded the opportunity of the role within my team ahead of the transfer.

Document will cite that I can apply termination earlier in the event of a job being found elsewhere and redundancy will be paid.

That is possibly true - but not necessarily. You haven't clearly identified a "role" that is the same as yours - tasks are something different. If the "new role" in the team is the same or similar grade and covers a range of tasks similar to your redundant role / tasks that you are capable of doing then you have an argument that the new role should have been appointed competitively. Your being in the team already doesn't trump the rights of someone else whose role is also being made redundant. If the "new role" doesn't fit those parameters,  it's a bit more of a grey area.  

I agree that it's been handled poorly, but that isn't the same thing as handled "wrongly". And even if handled "wrongly" it seems that the offer you've got is pretty much beyond anything you could conceivably win in a court,  sometime in the future,  if you win. So unless there is some huge "hole" in the information you've given - like having some dynamite slam dunk claim that you can't possibly lose - I'd still suggest that you quit whilst you are ahead (assuming it's all confirmed in writing).

For some reason or another, someone somewhere decided that your role / you were being made redundant and someone else wasn't. You may never understand what the reasons for that were. But it was a decision made by someone,  and all those someone's appear to be trying to offload that fact onto someone else! As I said before,  I don't believe for one minute that any of this happened without HRs knowledge. Conspiracy or screw up - does it really matter? Do you actually want to continue working for these people? Without a sweet deal you wouldn't have a choice. You have a sweet deal. Take it. 

It was literally a case of my jobs going to the transfer at the same time as the team was advised that we were shorthanded. It appears that the management of the process was deemed poor.

I have applied for a number of internal roles but then if they come to nothing I'm out.

You have mentioned a "transfer" several times now, but you are saying that you are being made redundant alongside other redundancies. What exactly is going on here?

You do know that if you get an internal job you will not get any redundancy money?

And none of that answer addresses any of the points that I raised - a team can be "shorthanded", and other staff can still be allocated into that team in a variety of ways to perform tasks, and yet redundancy can still be  perfectly legal. I don't know where you work, but I work in the public sector - we are constantly "shorthanded / overworked" and yet we are still losing posts and making redundancies. Just because there is work to be done does not mean an employer has to employ people to do it, and nor does it mean that they can't transfer that work to other people / posts. 

You are repeatedly focussing on your belief, instead of addressing any of the questions being asked. People cannot advise you if you won't answer the questions!

Let's try this another way. No matter what has happened so far, put that to one side for now. What do you want to happen? Do you want to be made redundant? Or not? 

artyboy

I'd be taking that 1 year's salary like a shot, especially in the context of the situation you outlined. But my circumstances are possibly different to yours, and I'm becoming a bit of an old hand at this process 

saajan_12

emploee_77 said:

So I had a late Friday meeting. The company has said mistakes were made, the transfer in is doing tasks that I could have but we're now too far into the process. The company also said that the experience was unacceptably humiliating and cruel towards me.  My termination date has been extended to 31st December and my redundancy will be 12 months salary.

I didn't realise this could be done. I think it's a good deal, I assume I should accept?

So you'll have an extra 9 months than previously expected, or 18 months in total to find a new job while still effectively being paid. If you find a job earlier, then some of that time will effectively give you double pay. 

I think that's pretty generous and likely more than you'd get at tribunal (the company also save the cost of going to tribunal, their staff time, etc which is why they're willing to offer). 

What outcome are you looking for? If its compensation for how it was handled, then you have more than that in the above offer. If its to punish them then go ahead but you'll also punish yourself, as you could be using the time to find a new job. Its crazy IMO to want to reverse the redundancy as the company will resist and it'll be beyond tense to work there after and if they thought making you redundant was the best course, they're likely going to try again, albeit properly. 

emploee_77 said:

LinLui said:

emploee_77 said:

LinLui said:

There is nothing in that to suggest, from what you say, that there isn't a genuine redundancy, more that it has been handled very badly. But the choices are that you either accept - there is no way that you would be likely to gain that much even if you went to a tribunal and won; or that you decide to fight the redunancy altogether - and if you did that, do you genuinely want to work there after this?

Personally I would take it provided it is all in writing and agreed. 

Myt two areas to question would be - what if you were offered your dream job next month (or before the end of the year)? What happens to your redudancy pay? Because technically, in law, you could lose it all if you obtain another job too soon.

And (although this is for you) what if they withdraw the redundancy - because they could, and there is nothing that you could do about it if they did. 

The redundancies are genuine as the company is going through a restructuring. The issue is that I should have been afforded the opportunity of the role within my team ahead of the transfer.

Document will cite that I can apply termination earlier in the event of a job being found elsewhere and redundancy will be paid.

That is possibly true - but not necessarily. You haven't clearly identified a "role" that is the same as yours - tasks are something different. If the "new role" in the team is the same or similar grade and covers a range of tasks similar to your redundant role / tasks that you are capable of doing then you have an argument that the new role should have been appointed competitively. Your being in the team already doesn't trump the rights of someone else whose role is also being made redundant. If the "new role" doesn't fit those parameters,  it's a bit more of a grey area.  

I agree that it's been handled poorly, but that isn't the same thing as handled "wrongly". And even if handled "wrongly" it seems that the offer you've got is pretty much beyond anything you could conceivably win in a court,  sometime in the future,  if you win. So unless there is some huge "hole" in the information you've given - like having some dynamite slam dunk claim that you can't possibly lose - I'd still suggest that you quit whilst you are ahead (assuming it's all confirmed in writing).

For some reason or another, someone somewhere decided that your role / you were being made redundant and someone else wasn't. You may never understand what the reasons for that were. But it was a decision made by someone,  and all those someone's appear to be trying to offload that fact onto someone else! As I said before,  I don't believe for one minute that any of this happened without HRs knowledge. Conspiracy or screw up - does it really matter? Do you actually want to continue working for these people? Without a sweet deal you wouldn't have a choice. You have a sweet deal. Take it. 

It was literally a case of my jobs going to the transfer at the same time as the team was advised that we were shorthanded. It appears that the management of the process was deemed poor.

I have applied for a number of internal roles but then if they come to nothing I'm out.

Is the transfer more junior and paid less than you? Your tasks may still need doing, but maybe they don't need someone in your role, ie a Senior Worker to do <your old tasks>, they just need no one to do <transfer's old tasks> and Junior Worker to do <your old tasks>. 

Between now and your termination date, what are you actually doing - are you in the workplace still?