Tweet
I've been made redundant by a selection criteria that was almost entirely subjective in its format . It could be argued that due to the nature of my work this was to be expected . The company has no performance management structure or appraisals etc in place. On 2 particular criteria relating to performance I've scored low, and justification is in my opinion weak. One criteria has no documentary evidence to support the low score. Another criteria has 2 minor indiscretions on file (which were formally agreed with me)plus 3 dubious "notes" that are a records of conversations that took and in my view are an attempt to create a view that I'm a problem employee . To give one example it relates to having made a spend on expenses that had been signed off many times previously. It may have been fair to pick it up that there was a cheaper way to do something but to put it on file unseen then bring it out to bolster justification for a low score for a criteria which relates to conduct is not acceptable. I never saw the content of any of these notes prior to going on my HR file so that seems like bad practice to me.
So the company have offered me about 5 week salary in early conciliation for "commercial reasons" I.e it's cheaper and less bother due to my appeal and now early conciliation. About half of this sum is owed to me anyway in unauthorised deductions and breach of contract which leaves me short of money owing to me for length of service and holidays I would have accrued which I'm pretty certain of winning at ET. Both of the mentioned contractual issues equate to just over half a months net salary. I'm looking for 2 months salary to put this case to bed but the company are saying take it or put a claim in. So the help I'm seeking is thus:
1. What will a tribunal look for in justifying criteria scoring as in my case where it mostly subjective.
2. Do the content of notes on file have to to be shared and agreed before going on file.
3. How does my offer look in comparison to a typical offer if one exists bearing in mind the company owe me around half of what they've offered anyway.
4. As both criteria I've mentioned received the same low score (both relating to conduct type criteria such as flexibility adaptability behaviours etc)with one having some notes and greater amount of so called "evidence" to support it while the other had non how would this be viewed.
Another area that's troubling me is the selection pool. I was 1 of the 2 people put into the selection pool. We're both senior experienced professionals yet a third person was spared going into the pool as they are a bit more senior in rank and have additional management responsibilities and manage the team I'm part of. I would say they spend on average 80% of their time doing what I do and the rest on management tasks. The company have said they were not included in the pool as it would have left a skills gap. Both myself and the other candidate have previous experience doing these additional management elements as we've been in the profession a long time and are both very experienced mature professionals. The argument was made that there would be no-one to train either of us up. Interestiny that other more senior person was involved with scoring the selection criteria as I worked directly with and for them as my line manager. That person was not present throughout the consultation process or when the scores were revealed (HOD covered this)so I did not have an opportunity to challenge both of the scorers on my scores which were combined and averaged. Only 1 of the scorers was present throughout the whole consultation process. As I'm not as confident of proving unfair dismissal as I am the other 2 money related issues previously mentioned. I would welcome thoughts from anyone with experience or knowledge of such cases. Thanks in advance
Wayne
So the company have offered me about 5 week salary in early conciliation for "commercial reasons" I.e it's cheaper and less bother due to my appeal and now early conciliation. About half of this sum is owed to me anyway in unauthorised deductions and breach of contract which leaves me short of money owing to me for length of service and holidays I would have accrued which I'm pretty certain of winning at ET. Both of the mentioned contractual issues equate to just over half a months net salary. I'm looking for 2 months salary to put this case to bed but the company are saying take it or put a claim in. So the help I'm seeking is thus:
1. What will a tribunal look for in justifying criteria scoring as in my case where it mostly subjective.
2. Do the content of notes on file have to to be shared and agreed before going on file.
3. How does my offer look in comparison to a typical offer if one exists bearing in mind the company owe me around half of what they've offered anyway.
4. As both criteria I've mentioned received the same low score (both relating to conduct type criteria such as flexibility adaptability behaviours etc)with one having some notes and greater amount of so called "evidence" to support it while the other had non how would this be viewed.
Another area that's troubling me is the selection pool. I was 1 of the 2 people put into the selection pool. We're both senior experienced professionals yet a third person was spared going into the pool as they are a bit more senior in rank and have additional management responsibilities and manage the team I'm part of. I would say they spend on average 80% of their time doing what I do and the rest on management tasks. The company have said they were not included in the pool as it would have left a skills gap. Both myself and the other candidate have previous experience doing these additional management elements as we've been in the profession a long time and are both very experienced mature professionals. The argument was made that there would be no-one to train either of us up. Interestiny that other more senior person was involved with scoring the selection criteria as I worked directly with and for them as my line manager. That person was not present throughout the consultation process or when the scores were revealed (HOD covered this)so I did not have an opportunity to challenge both of the scorers on my scores which were combined and averaged. Only 1 of the scorers was present throughout the whole consultation process. As I'm not as confident of proving unfair dismissal as I am the other 2 money related issues previously mentioned. I would welcome thoughts from anyone with experience or knowledge of such cases. Thanks in advance
Wayne
Comment