Unfair redundancy process - case for settlement agreement?

[GreatScott]

I am currently in a consultation process where my leadership role has disappeared due to a restructuring. There are no leadership roles to apply for as they have all been allocated to others. However some are clearly not 'role-matches' and have certain people have been cherry picked into the new roles despite them not been substantively the same. A peer of mine who does practically the same job as me has been slotted into a brand new role, but the substantive duties in the new role cannot be compared to the old role. It is clearly and obviously a completely different role. I have challenged this but received a bland response back saying everyone has been treated fairly (even though some insiders have told me that it wasn't a legitimate role-match). There are some other procedural errors too I feel (such as announcing the new structure before concluding my personal consultation) but these are side issues. My contractual redundancy terms are better than statutory and it is a decent amount, but i feel that there is a case for unfair dismissal. The company don't seem to be offering any settlement agreement (only my contractual redundancy terms which are better than statutory). Do I have a case? How would I approach this?

[ULA]

My understanding is that under a restructuring then the company can map individuals across to newly identified roles in the new organisation structure. In doing so the company needs to be confident that the individual mapped across has a high proportion of the skills required to carry out that new role. It is not necessarily about the duties in the the role being the same or similar it is about the skills set required to carry out that new role.
If there are a number of candidates that are "at risk" that have the potential skills set then the company could hold interviews for the role but if it can justify its decision on the mapping across then those not identified into new roles should then be consulted as part of a redundancy process.
In a situation such as this it may be very unlikely that the company will offer a settlement agreement.
If you are being offered a greater than statutory redundancy then that would be taken account of by a tribunal should they agreed it was unfair dismissal.

[PocketRocket]

My understanding is that under a restructuring then the company can map individuals across to newly identified roles in the new organisation structure. In doing so the company needs to be confident that the individual mapped across has a high proportion of the skills required to carry out that new role. It is not necessarily about the duties in the the role being the same or similar it is about the skills set required to carry out that new role.
If there are a number of candidates that are "at risk" that have the potential skills set then the company could hold interviews for the role but if it can justify its decision on the mapping across then those not identified into new roles should then be consulted as part of a redundancy process.
In a situation such as this it may be very unlikely that the company will offer a settlement agreement.
If you are being offered a greater than statutory redundancy then that would be taken account of by a tribunal should they agreed it was unfair dismissal.

I am not sure that is entirely correct. My understanding is that slotting in without the need to go through a recruitment process shall apply where there has been no significant change in the duties and responsibilities of a post following restructuring and where the number of posts available is equal to or in excess of the number of existing post holders. For example, looking at https://www.gblf.co.uk/service/emplo...restructuring/ it outlines that this is about duties rather than skills

Automatic slotting in - Where the substantive duties of the post holder are wholly or mainly the same in the new structure as they were in the old, and where there is no change in grade to the post and no other staff in the same role are displaced, the member of staff should slot in automatically without competition and without detriment to their terms and conditions.
Competitive interview - This will be used where posts in the revised or new service are similar to existing posts and/or where there are fewer available posts than staff potentially ‘at risk’. The identifiable group will be ‘ring fenced’ so that only the staff potentially at risk are considered for the available posts. Similarly, where there is more than one employee with a slotting in claim to a new post in the structure, the employee should be invited to compete in a ring-fenced selection / skills assessment process.

If you are doing the same role as the person that was slotted into the new role, I would have thought you have some sort of case. Though as suggested above, the enhanced terms would be taken into account in any award.