Tweet
Hi everyone,
I'd really appreciate some advice from the community on my current situation. I'm currently going through the redundancy process and I'm in a selection pool of 3 with 2 roles available. For completeness I put myself forward to be an employee rep and subsequently was voted in.
To obscure details lets say the process officially started on Monday 5th June, employee rep 'training' was provided on the Friday prior to that. On the Monday a PDF named 'Rep pack' was distributed to the reps to review this contained existing org structure, proposed org structure, selection pools, justifications and selection criteria.
I noticed that the proposed org structure for my area stated the names and role titles of the 2 other people in my selection pool. What it showed was how my current direct team leader reports had been split between the two other people in my selection pool. The division of these reporting lines have been split between the two remaining roles. This was clearly demonstrated that person A on the org chart would be doing 80% of what they already do just with the addition of one of my TL reports and person B the same.
Regardless of ideas of a predetermined outcome I'd argue I'm already at a disadvantage as those two peers work on different systems, with vastly different processes and have already been doing those responsibilities before this. All that is being proposed is the addition of my reports which in this proposal are also reduced. It makes sense for my 2 peers to assume those roles and the propose org chart supports that. The issue is legally they shouldn't have done that.
On the Tuesday it was commented in a chat by one of the HR people that there was mistakes in the rep pack and that names shouldn't have been included and the reason they were is because of admin errors in Lucid chart and moving about structures within the org Lucid charts. I know this not to be true as originally we were given access to the Lucid charts showing the current and proposed org structures which were separate documents meaning you wouldn't have been able to copy things between the current and proposed.
In the employee pack that went out on the Tuesday all names were removed and roles were generalised but outside of the comment about making a mistake the employee rep pack has never been redacted or a new version published.
I'll be honest here, I've worked at the business for 9 years and I didn't want to leave so I'm not seeking to exploit something. I had prior felt there was an agenda and this process has confirmed that for me.
My question is does this sound like something that would legitimately stand up in an employment tribunal or do you think they could explain it away?
(I've already raised a dispute with ACAS and am awaiting them to contact me)
Thank you
I'd really appreciate some advice from the community on my current situation. I'm currently going through the redundancy process and I'm in a selection pool of 3 with 2 roles available. For completeness I put myself forward to be an employee rep and subsequently was voted in.
To obscure details lets say the process officially started on Monday 5th June, employee rep 'training' was provided on the Friday prior to that. On the Monday a PDF named 'Rep pack' was distributed to the reps to review this contained existing org structure, proposed org structure, selection pools, justifications and selection criteria.
I noticed that the proposed org structure for my area stated the names and role titles of the 2 other people in my selection pool. What it showed was how my current direct team leader reports had been split between the two other people in my selection pool. The division of these reporting lines have been split between the two remaining roles. This was clearly demonstrated that person A on the org chart would be doing 80% of what they already do just with the addition of one of my TL reports and person B the same.
Regardless of ideas of a predetermined outcome I'd argue I'm already at a disadvantage as those two peers work on different systems, with vastly different processes and have already been doing those responsibilities before this. All that is being proposed is the addition of my reports which in this proposal are also reduced. It makes sense for my 2 peers to assume those roles and the propose org chart supports that. The issue is legally they shouldn't have done that.
On the Tuesday it was commented in a chat by one of the HR people that there was mistakes in the rep pack and that names shouldn't have been included and the reason they were is because of admin errors in Lucid chart and moving about structures within the org Lucid charts. I know this not to be true as originally we were given access to the Lucid charts showing the current and proposed org structures which were separate documents meaning you wouldn't have been able to copy things between the current and proposed.
In the employee pack that went out on the Tuesday all names were removed and roles were generalised but outside of the comment about making a mistake the employee rep pack has never been redacted or a new version published.
I'll be honest here, I've worked at the business for 9 years and I didn't want to leave so I'm not seeking to exploit something. I had prior felt there was an agenda and this process has confirmed that for me.
My question is does this sound like something that would legitimately stand up in an employment tribunal or do you think they could explain it away?
(I've already raised a dispute with ACAS and am awaiting them to contact me)
Thank you
Comment