Wage and duties dispute

Malarky21

Looking for some advice with regards to my work place, last year our company bought another company and their staff joined us in our building. 
In my department there were 3 people but following the merger there are now 4 including a manager.
Last month the company announced there will be redundancies and the manager ended up being made redundant which left just 3 of us again including 1 from the company we bought last year. As there is now no manager in our department i am looked upon as the senior member of the department and am having to guide, help, advise, co-ordinate etc the other members, i also found out that the newer member of the team is on more money than me so i am acting like a supervisor and trainer to someone earning more and being with us far less than me.
This feels unfair to me, i put in a grievance and have now been offered a settlement figure which i have 10 days to accept or i go back to work and they will deal with my grievance.
Does anyone have any advice on what to do in this situation? Should i accept the settlement figure? Try and haggle for more? Refuse it and see if they will increase my salary and title given what i am doing within the department?
Does anyone have any recommendations on employee solicitors?
I have been with the company for many years so it's a tricky one as ideally i'd want to stay.
Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

Hoenir

The new employee remains on their existing terms and conditions. Often is this addressed by future payrises either not being granted or being lower than that awarded to the current employees. The pay differential slowly being eradicated over time. Your employer has done nothing wrong. As they have to abide by TUPE legislation. 

Malarky21

Hi, yes i realise my employer has done nothing wrong with regards to the transfer of employees, it just seems unfair that i am doing essentially the work of a supervisor but without the title or salary

Savvy_Sue

So is the settlement figure for you to leave? Or you can stay, with no guarantee that they'll increase your wage?

If you leave, how easy would it be to find another job? 

gm0

You need to think about how you handle this having perhaps gone off on the wrong tack.

When an employee comes in a merger.  Or is long serving at a career level.  Sometimes pay gets out of whack with the new normal.  The rate for the job moves. New hires and promotes get more. Or sometimes less.  Similar relabelled roles.  Or someone comes in and earns more than other company incumbents or vice versa in a merger.  An HR inconvenience but legally unavoidable in larger shops.  Not everyone gets the same based on how they arrived and events since.  It is what it is.

Do we go round level by level and push everyone up any time this happens.  Raising costs when merger savings were promised as part of doing the transaction.  Err NO we don't.  Is it 100% fair also NO.  Never meant to be.  We also don't cut the tall poppy persons pay - TUPE and wide conventions on not doing that.  Slow/zero rises. Yes. Actual cuts - not so much. I am sure it happens in extremis.

We just starve the above scale person of raises in band and also cost of living adjustments until it falls more back into line.  "virtual red sticker - "out of band salary" on their file.  Or keep an eye on performance and consider them carefully in any redundancy consultation.  This is tricky stuff.  You want to lower the cost pyramid.  You mustn't get caught doing bad things discriminating on protected characteristics.  But they get no scale point rises.  A bare bones cost of living adjustment with everyone else - maybe - or use skipping that to drag it back closer to par in fewer years. If they do a good job - the small premium vs peer group is tolerated.  Rehiring costs more.  Much depends on HR and unions and sector conventions.

But if the financial situation here is "redundancies" and the profitability/cashflow is poor - i.e the business isn't doing well. 

They reacted to a (somewhat silly) "more money because fairness grievance" by offering you settlement terms to leave.  Not saying well done for stepping up - here is some money.  This tells you two things 1) money is tight 2) it's not over and promotions and new roles are likely on hold right now.  Approaching it upfront as a grievance rather than more softly softly has not gone over well.

Since they think you are already !!!!!! off and disengaged - because grievance.  Ending you seems a better option to them than rewarding you or just saying "no" and expecting you to perform.  Still it's another saving.  A head above the parapet.  That one will do. Remove it. And yes - maybe there are negative consequences for the knowledge of the team.  A bad decision - maybe - maybe not.

What you *should* probably have done more smartly. And maybe still can DO.  If you want 1) to stay 2) more pay in recognition of more work / because fairer in that order - Is look at the org above this section.  Who owns the budget and line management responsibility for it.  Preferably identify someone with greater power - not HR - senior management  from the company you have been in - you know vaguely have met at all hands meetings etc via long service if possible.

And you now get a slot and go to them and have a conversation about understanding current business conditions are tough.  About how you like working here long term - corporate memory - and are still committed to stay.  That there is a misunderstanding.  Perhaps you have gone about this the wrong way.  That you are happy to lead / coach / train / manage the team pro tem - but expect this to be recognised (objectives, skills lists, professional development blah blah - as applies in this setting).  And also in time doing it successfully - as business conditions allow - see some career development, better pay and better opportunities reflecting your greater contribution.  You work to the benefit of the company in this difficult time. And expect recognition for this additional contribution over time. A mature approach to asking informally for jam tomorrow. 

It will feel a bit like grovelling at this point but it can't be helped.  Rationalise it as making the best of a bad situation.

You want to be a candidate for a manager role if it reappears in further restructuring.  Consideration for other next level opportunities around the business having demonstrated more and new skills.  Whatever it is you actually would find positive.  (That being more money for the old job without the team lead bits - isn't going to fit well for this approach).   

Performative positive recommitment by both parties.  It may be *all* lies. from both of you.  They aren't committing to do anything on a fixed schedule or to rig a recruitment for you (Can't do that).  So you don't put them in a corner.
You are saying what you need to say - to stay and reverse out of your grievance cul de sac.  Be the happy little tree helping through tough times.  And try to bank some support for better rewards when the financial wind changes. 

You are on a hiding to nothing right now.  You go back.  Same pay.  Be the disengaged version - they bin you later - you are spotted now.  Do the job and the extra bits - nobody much cares.  Team wheel not squeaky.  No oil.

Do the highly motivated supplicant thing.  If you can bear it.  And if you still can't stomach the perceived unfairness.  Don't bother - look for another job opportunity elsewhere and take their money.

You should compare the offer to statutory redundancy for your salary, service and the cap, adding notice etc. PILON, accrued leave, consider pensionable amounts (for more top up/taxrelief if short term cashflow and a new job aren't a particular worry.

Emmia

OP,  how would you feel if the newbie became your manager? Completely ok because they earn more? Or irked because they know nowt and don't have your knowledge, skills and experience?

I agree with the others you've gone about this in completely the wrong way, and having caused trouble and friction that you may find yourself being eased out or tacitly encouraged to leave.

If you can find another job, I'd do so.

FlorayG

gm0 has it right
The new person is on a salary they had in their previous job. Where I work we had a trading manager (second line) on over £5,000 more than the store manager for a long time because he had moved 'down' from a higher paid position elsewhere in the company. He moaned every year that his salary was ring fenced and he didn't get a cost-of-living pay rise as everyone else did, but he got no more until 'everyone else' had caught up with his pay scale. The store manager understood the situation and that's where YOUR company went wrong; they should have explained this to all of your team when the new person started (that's possibly why they have offered a settlement for your grievance rather than just throwing it out)
So now your best bet, if you want to stay, is to make a case for a pay increase due to your increased responsibilities. You will need to provide proof that you are doing a lot more than was expected of you before the manager left and you should not make any comparison between your salary and that of the incomer.
best of luck

LightFlare

Malarky21 said:

Looking for some advice with regards to my work place, last year our company bought another company and their staff joined us in our building. 
In my department there were 3 people but following the merger there are now 4 including a manager.
Last month the company announced there will be redundancies and the manager ended up being made redundant which left just 3 of us again including 1 from the company we bought last year. As there is now no manager in our department i am looked upon as the senior member of the department and am having to guide, help, advise, co-ordinate etc the other members, i also found out that the newer member of the team is on more money than me so i am acting like a supervisor and trainer to someone earning more and being with us far less than me.
This feels unfair to me, i put in a grievance and have now been offered a settlement figure which i have 10 days to accept or i go back to work and they will deal with my grievance.
Does anyone have any advice on what to do in this situation? Should i accept the settlement figure? Try and haggle for more? Refuse it and see if they will increase my salary and title given what i am doing within the department?
Does anyone have any recommendations on employee solicitors?
I have been with the company for many years so it's a tricky one as ideally i'd want to stay.
Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

This need context.

On a daily basis I provide those things to people on much higher wages than myself and frequently require support/training from people with lower wages than myself.

In fact, I would guess that this happens in most workplaces.

As above, there is nothing to stop one employee being paid more or less than another (unless it’s due to one of the recognised characteristics)

400ixl

Why did you raise a grievance?

Did you build a case with your management as to why you should be paid more and given a title for your role? This is the usual route to start negotiating with your employer.

Jumping straight to a grievance complicates things, and usually not to your favour.

Same question as above, is the settlement offer for a severance payment in lieu of redundancy? How does it measure up to what you would get if made redundant?

As for a pay rise and title if you decide to stay, sounds unlikely as if they valued you to that level they would have made that offer instead of the settlement. But you may still be better off staying if the settlement is not acceptable and less than redundancy if they then went down that route.

Unless the settlement was a one off payment to compensate you without changing your salary or giving you a title. Then you need to decide if that is enough to allow you to get over it. Or worth tking to then look for another job elsewhere.

Needs more context really.

TELLIT01

Many jobs descriptions have the catch all phrase of "and such other duties as may be deemed necessary" which would potentially cover the additional duties now required.  There is no automatic right to be on a higher wage than those you are supervising. 

When the banking crisis hit I was working for a bank which took over another.  During restructuring my role from bank A disappeared but I was offered a new role.  Basically very similar responsibilities but different job title.  I was literally earning thousands of pounds more than those in the same role with bank B, but I retained my salary.  I needed training in some of the processes used at bank B despite earning more than the people training me.  That's just the way life is.

Malarky21

I do understand that when companies merge there can be issues with salary, i did raise my issues informally which didn't get me anywhere hence why i raised a grievance which i am perfectly entitled to do as stated in our company handbook, indeed ACAS and legal advice recommended doing this. No one i have spoken to (and i have spoken to lots of people) think raising a grievance over this situation is 'going about things totally wrong, causing friction and trouble, somewhat silly etc but i'll take on board all your comments.

I guess another option is for me to continue in my current role without doing the extra i have been doing and just do the same as my department colleagues.

I did state the extra work i was doing in my grievance and before that, indeed management told me i'd be seen as the senior member of the team now.

The settlement offer was made so that i leave and it was a similar amount to redundancy, if i don't accept it then it will be removed and they said they will then look at my grievance.

I'm sure i could get another job but as i've said i've worked there a very long time and know the job/people etc well.