Is this legal from the employer?

Undervalued

mjmjjjmmm said:

Hoenir said:

mjmjjjmmm said:

Hoenir said:

Why didn't the employee highlight to the CEO the lack of work they had to perform? 

I don't understand what this means

Redundancy normally comes about because there's insufficient work to keep people fully employed. 

The employee has worked there for nearly a decade, longer than most of the staff. Is widely regarded as someone who works hard, (as evidenced by previous line managers there,) also going outside their job role to help keep the company going. They have other work besides proposals as they do a wide range of managerial tasks. So it is obvious that they perform, and do valued work. In this situation it seems a retaliation to an employee that pointed out a line manager who in effect bullies everyone out of their jobs

That has little or nothing to do with redundancy. A role becomes redundant if there is less (or no) work for them to do in the future. Or, because the company has decided to outsource that type of work rather than have it done by employees - which they are quite entitled to do.

Obviously the firm may have another motive for wanting rid of this individual in which case it may amount to unfair dismissal.

mjmjjjmmm

Undervalued said:

mjmjjjmmm said:

Hoenir said:

mjmjjjmmm said:

Hoenir said:

Why didn't the employee highlight to the CEO the lack of work they had to perform? 

I don't understand what this means

Redundancy normally comes about because there's insufficient work to keep people fully employed. 

The employee has worked there for nearly a decade, longer than most of the staff. Is widely regarded as someone who works hard, (as evidenced by previous line managers there,) also going outside their job role to help keep the company going. They have other work besides proposals as they do a wide range of managerial tasks. So it is obvious that they perform, and do valued work. In this situation it seems a retaliation to an employee that pointed out a line manager who in effect bullies everyone out of their jobs

That has little or nothing to do with redundancy. A role becomes redundant if there is less (or no) work for them to do in the future. Or, because the company has decided to outsource that type of work rather than have it done by employees - which they are quite entitled to do.

Obviously the firm may have another motive for wanting rid of this individual in which case it may amount to unfair dismissal.

I agree completely. I think the trouble is I left out a lot of information in my op to condense it and people are not understanding my question. My only question was, is it seen as bad practice to ask employees to be open and honest with them, then use that information against them. Which I am realising is legally fine. The person made redundant using a funded role which would usually be bid for at the end of contract (and would always win). Unfortunately the line manager and or CEO took the decision not to re bid for the contract even though the department will stay open and merge with another similar team (hence the the job offer being to compete for this new role with the other teams counterpart manager). I just wondered if bringing to attention the pattern of behaviour by the line manager who has made the environment so toxic for many collegues that they left, was something that could have been seen as a mark against them. That was my only question, but it seems to be getting lost. So I'll just say thank you for the replies and leave it as a hard lesson learnt.

mjmjjjmmm

I also forgot to mention neither manager in this position facing redundancy are happy as the role is twice the work, for no pay increase and more demand on already stretched teams below them. 

Hoenir

mjmjjjmmm said:

Undervalued said:

mjmjjjmmm said:

Hoenir said:

mjmjjjmmm said:

Hoenir said:

Why didn't the employee highlight to the CEO the lack of work they had to perform? 

I don't understand what this means

Redundancy normally comes about because there's insufficient work to keep people fully employed. 

The employee has worked there for nearly a decade, longer than most of the staff. Is widely regarded as someone who works hard, (as evidenced by previous line managers there,) also going outside their job role to help keep the company going. They have other work besides proposals as they do a wide range of managerial tasks. So it is obvious that they perform, and do valued work. In this situation it seems a retaliation to an employee that pointed out a line manager who in effect bullies everyone out of their jobs

That has little or nothing to do with redundancy. A role becomes redundant if there is less (or no) work for them to do in the future. Or, because the company has decided to outsource that type of work rather than have it done by employees - which they are quite entitled to do.

Obviously the firm may have another motive for wanting rid of this individual in which case it may amount to unfair dismissal.

The person made redundant using a funded role which would usually be bid for at the end of contract (and would always win). Unfortunately the line manager and or CEO took the decision not to re bid for the contract even though the department will stay open and merge with another similar team (hence the the job offer being to compete for this new role with the other teams counterpart manager). 

That's a commercial decision made at a high level, possibly even board. Any employees impacted are purely collateral damage. While it may seem that the individual is being targetted. Decisions to consolidate departments are made to cut costs. Last year's budget and it's impact on payroll costs may well be a nail in the coffin for some workstreams. There's likely to be far far more going on. 

EnPointe

Sounds like the OP needs to be reminded  of the following 

ROLES are made  redundant , not people 

mjmjjjmmm

EnPointe said:

Sounds like the OP needs to be reminded  of the following 

ROLES are made  redundant , not people 

Not sure why the need for being so condescending. I have stayed many times it's the role. My point is a completely different one. As I said before, my question has been answered so no need for further comments like this

mjmjjjmmm

Hoenir said:

mjmjjjmmm said:

Undervalued said:

mjmjjjmmm said:

Hoenir said:

mjmjjjmmm said:

Hoenir said:

Why didn't the employee highlight to the CEO the lack of work they had to perform? 

I don't understand what this means

Redundancy normally comes about because there's insufficient work to keep people fully employed. 

The employee has worked there for nearly a decade, longer than most of the staff. Is widely regarded as someone who works hard, (as evidenced by previous line managers there,) also going outside their job role to help keep the company going. They have other work besides proposals as they do a wide range of managerial tasks. So it is obvious that they perform, and do valued work. In this situation it seems a retaliation to an employee that pointed out a line manager who in effect bullies everyone out of their jobs

That has little or nothing to do with redundancy. A role becomes redundant if there is less (or no) work for them to do in the future. Or, because the company has decided to outsource that type of work rather than have it done by employees - which they are quite entitled to do.

Obviously the firm may have another motive for wanting rid of this individual in which case it may amount to unfair dismissal.

The person made redundant using a funded role which would usually be bid for at the end of contract (and would always win). Unfortunately the line manager and or CEO took the decision not to re bid for the contract even though the department will stay open and merge with another similar team (hence the the job offer being to compete for this new role with the other teams counterpart manager). 

That's a commercial decision made at a high level, possibly even board. Any employees impacted are purely collateral damage. While it may seem that the individual is being targetted. Decisions to consolidate departments are made to cut costs. Last year's budget and it's impact on payroll costs may well be a nail in the coffin for some workstreams. There's likely to be far far more going on. 

I agree. But as this is not a typical corporate structure things are different and there is a lot of unprofessionalism that goes on in this place, which is difficult to go into here. Like I said before my question has been answered so no need for any more replies. Thank you for the info though