Redundancy and new positions
anne_stroud
Posts: 20 Forumite
Hi
My company are making two departments redundant due to centralisation of roles. Some people have already avoided redundancy as were successful in acquiring a new job in departments not at risk. However this week we have found out that two new positions have recently been filled with people not at risk or on notice. These positions were not advertised internally, just filled by the management. We feel this was very unfair as had the vacancies been advertised lots would have applied for the jobs. Are they obliged to advertise jobs internally so that people can have a fair crack at the whip?
Thank you
My company are making two departments redundant due to centralisation of roles. Some people have already avoided redundancy as were successful in acquiring a new job in departments not at risk. However this week we have found out that two new positions have recently been filled with people not at risk or on notice. These positions were not advertised internally, just filled by the management. We feel this was very unfair as had the vacancies been advertised lots would have applied for the jobs. Are they obliged to advertise jobs internally so that people can have a fair crack at the whip?
Thank you
0
Comments
-
Have you worked there for more than 2 years?
Are the jobs these 2 people had previously now vacant or have they ceased to exist?0 -
Morally, I'd agree with you.anne_stroud wrote: »We feel this was very unfair as had the vacancies been advertised lots would have applied for the jobs. Are they obliged to advertise jobs internally so that people can have a fair crack at the whip?
Legally, though, my understanding is that there is no general duty for an employer to advertise job vacancies. However there is an obligation for employers not to discriminate against employees. Can it be argued that the way that the vacancies were filled constitutes discrimination?
Having said that, many employers - especially large ones - have HR policies that require the advertising of vacancies internally. There might also be an internal policy requiring that precedence be given to people who would otherwise be made redundant. These may have been agreed with the relevant trade union or some other staff reprensentatives. Does your employer have such a policy?
In practice, policies requiring advertising often don't have much effect beyond delaying the filling of the vacancy. If the relevant manager knows before he or she starts who they want to fill the vacancy, that person is almost certain to get the job, irrespective of other applications. The manager will just go through the motions. Twice I've applied and been interviewed for jobs, only to find that they'd already effectively been stitched up for someone else. On the other hand, I was once "invited to apply" for a job by a manager (with a pretty strong hint that he wanted me in the role), and was duly appointed to it after the other candidates were interviewed. I was not interviewed: the manager in question already knew me well enough to consider it unnecessary. (I had previously worked under him.)0 -
blue.peter wrote: »Morally, I'd agree with you.
Legally, though, my understanding is that there is no general duty for an employer to advertise job vacancies. However there is an obligation for employers not to discriminate against employees. Can it be argued that the way that the vacancies were filled constitutes discrimination?
Having said that, many employers - especially large ones - have HR policies that require the advertising of vacancies internally. There might also be an internal policy requiring that precedence be given to people who would otherwise be made redundant. These may have been agreed with the relevant trade union or some other staff reprensentatives. Does your employer have such a policy?
In practice, policies requiring advertising often don't have much effect beyond delaying the filling of the vacancy. If the relevant manager knows before he or she starts who they want to fill the vacancy, that person is almost certain to get the job, irrespective of other applications. The manager will just go through the motions. Twice I've applied and been interviewed for jobs, only to find that they'd already effectively been stitched up for someone else. On the other hand, I was once "invited to apply" for a job by a manager (with a pretty strong hint that he wanted me in the role), and was duly appointed to it after the other candidates were interviewed. I was not interviewed: the manager in question already knew me well enough to consider it unnecessary. (I had previously worked under him.)Have you worked there for more than 2 years?
Are the jobs these 2 people had previously now vacant or have they ceased to exist?
Hi Andy and BluePeter
I have worked there over 15years.
One job was filled by a colleague returning from maternity leave. Her department did not require her any more, so she was given the choice of taking this other job which was being covered by a temp. We are still required in our roles until next year, so lots of people were interested in the role which was being covered by this temp, but now the opportunity is no longer there.
The second job was a new position and was given to someone in that department without a single word.
Our company normally advertise jobs on an internal jobs board, but did not do so in both of these instances.0 -
anne_stroud wrote: »
One job was filled by a colleague returning from maternity leave. Her department did not require her any more, so she was given the choice of taking this other job which was being covered by a temp. We are still required in our roles until next year, so lots of people were interested in the role which was being covered by this temp, but now the opportunity is no longer there.
So the colleague returning from maternity leave was at risk (you say "her department did not require her any more"). She was offered suitable alternative employment which she accepted and, as someone on maternity leave, had legal right to this.0 -
General_Grant wrote: »So the colleague returning from maternity leave was at risk (you say "her department did not require her any more"). She was offered suitable alternative employment which she accepted and, as someone on maternity leave, had legal right to this.
The maternity lady's department is not involved in the redundancy process and are not at risk. They just decided they were not busy enough in that department and didn't require her. The manager then placed her into this other role at the same level as hers, without a word to the office. We all have the same job title, but work in different departments.0 -
anne_stroud wrote: »The maternity lady's department is not involved in the redundancy process and are not at risk. They just decided they were not busy enough in that department and didn't require her. The manager then placed her into this other role at the same level as hers, without a word to the office. We all have the same job title, but work in different departments.
So her job was at risk. She was on maternity leave. That means she has protection to be offered a vacancy.0 -
anne_stroud wrote: »The maternity lady's department is not involved in the redundancy process and are not at risk. They just decided they were not busy enough in that department and didn't require her. The manager then placed her into this other role at the same level as hers, without a word to the office. We all have the same job title, but work in different departments.
"Not being busy enough and not requiring her" means there is no job for her, so her job is technically redundant.If you are querying your Council Tax band would you please state whether you are in England, Scotland or Wales0 -
anne_stroud wrote: »Hi Andy and BluePeter
I have worked there over 15years.
One job was filled by a colleague returning from maternity leave. Her department did not require her any more, so she was given the choice of taking this other job which was being covered by a temp. We are still required in our roles until next year, so lots of people were interested in the role which was being covered by this temp, but now the opportunity is no longer there.
The second job was a new position and was given to someone in that department without a single word.
Our company normally advertise jobs on an internal jobs board, but did not do so in both of these instances.
I'm very sorry, but nothing you've said suggests to me that the company has done anything legally wrong. It's pretty rough, I know, and I sympathise. But it doesn't appear from what you've said that there's anything that you can do about it.
You've said that the company normally advertises jobs, but you haven't said that there's any policy requirement to do so in every case. In the absence of such a policy, you probably don't even have grounds for raising a grievance.0 -
General_Grant wrote: »So her job was at risk. She was on maternity leave. That means she has protection to be offered a vacancy.
Thank you. Does maternity protection to be offered a vacancy trump offering it to staff on notice of redundancy? I wonder if this person should also have been put on notice of redundancy and applied for this role with the rest of us. I'm not trying to be mean to the returning maternity lady, just wanting to know if the company acted fairly in this case?0 -
What's the time line that could be important in establishing if maternity return trumped the selection process.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards