Unfair redundancy

[krypton]

Unfortunately dealing with what appears to be a blatant sham redundancy with a long string of questionable process at the moment....

Can someone tell me please if you are issued a notice of redundancy but the employer has stated the incorrect job title being made redundant. e.g 'The role of 'XYZ Incorrect Job title' has been made redundant'...... Is this a technical error or can it also be construed as further evidence of incorrect process ?

[leclerc]

Re: Unfair redundancy

Unfortunately dealing with what appears to be a blatant sham redundancy with a long string of questionable process at the moment....

Can someone tell me please if you are issued a notice of redundancy but the employer has stated the incorrect job title being made redundant. e.g 'The role of 'XYZ Incorrect Job title' has been made redundant'...... Is this a technical error or can it also be construed as further evidence of incorrect process ?

Is everyone in the firm or division of the firm being made redundant? My gut feeling is that it's an error by the person who wrote the letter...

[krypton]

Re: Unfair redundancy

Only one person out of a team in the particular dept/division was selected for consultation and then made redundant.

There also appears to be a history of grievance and other serious issues leading up to it....so it appears the company wanted them out. It's finalised in a redundancy with a letter incorrectly stating the wrong job title and description...

[Tools]

Re: Unfair redundancy

The person being made redundant should have their job title and duties stated on their contract of employment. If that person did not carry out the duties/role of the position that is being made redundant then I cannot see how it would apply to them. Was the person consulted about redundancy beforehand?

[krypton]

Re: Unfair redundancy

The consultation process itself appears a bit of a mess and final notice was served by letter without a final consultation due to medical leave etc etc

To be honest the whole thing smacks of a sham redundancy. The company also now appear to be making out it was a 'standalone role' whilst at the same time appear to be accepting inter-operability with the other roles in the dept.

The notice of redundancy letter does not state the correct Job title as per the contract.

[Tools]

Re: Unfair redundancy

If the role was carried out in addition to the main role and duties, then I presume the main role still exists. Is this for yourself or a friend/colleague?

[krypton]

Re: Unfair redundancy

The notice states a generic job title but the contract has a specific title.

The company appear to be backtracking in their responses and the 'specific' roles duties are being passed to others in the dept. They are also now trying to equate the generic title to the specific one. It would seem they have realised they have made a bit of a mistake.....

There has been no selection matrix etc etc . The duties still exist. There has been no closure of dept, no loss making, the reasons being cited for redundancy being to cut overheads in order to make more profit.

[Tools]

Re: Unfair redundancy

the reasons being cited for redundancy being to cut overheads in order to make more profit.

This is an acceptable reason for redundancies, however, procedures must be followed properly including as you have said a proper consultation and matrix approach. I suggest you/your colleague speaks with ACAS, they are quite helpful and will be able to give you a more definitive answer.

[krypton]

Re: Unfair redundancy

The company seems to now be stating no matrix was needed as that was the only role identified to be made redundant. Its been through ACAS which is why it's being asked here. They have said any factual errors best referred back to the employer. It's for a friend and trust me it's a mess.

Just need to clarify if they identified the incorrect role/title in the notice, is that merely a technicality or a fail in process?

[Tools]

Re: Unfair redundancy

I would say the process is invalid and they should restart the process. But that is only my opinion which is not a legal one

[krypton]

Re: Unfair redundancy

That's what I would have thought. Its a technicality but not sure if that's enough in this area of law to render the process invalid.

[teaboy2]

Re: Unfair redundancy

Its the role/position being made redundant, not the person or the duties. So if they got the role name wrong then it invalid, though doesn't mean a replacement final notice can not be sent out with correction of the role name.

Few Questions:

Is the Role soley occupied by your friend, or is it a role occupied by a number of people, who carry out same duties and with same title i.e. account manager?

Has your friend been offered alternative position within the company? Check if their advertising for jobs internally and externally!

How you know it gone through ACAS, or is the company just saying it has? Has your friend spoken to ACAS, if so what the say?

I don't think making a role redundant in order to increase profits is a valid reason for redundancy, especially if the department itself is making a profit - Only time it would be valid would be if that department was making a loss. It may also require variation of other peoples contracts for them to take on the extra duties associated with the role being made redundant.

[krypton]

Re: Unfair redundancy

Yes I concur. Technically I would say it is invalid but I always like to try focus on mistakes of material fact. In this case I think it probably does invalidate the process somewhat.

The appeal correspondence from the employer tries to rectify their mistake by naming the 'actual' role being made redundant but referring it as 'commonly known' as the role they identified in the notice letter.

Reading it is a bit unprofessional and cringe worthy tbh.

There appear to be a number of similar roles in the same dept. The role titles are slightly different but there is clear inter-operability between each of them and tasks change hands amongst them. I understand on a matrix scheme there are newer members etc

However it's the only role in that dept selected for consultation and targetted for redundancy. A history of grievance and issues with the line manager....makes it all appear a fait accompli and opportunity to try get rid.

They have spoken and been through to ACAS and it would now have to go to ET. I am trying to help sort through these papers but it struck me if the notice is incorrect I would imagine the process would be knocked back?

I would also have thought one of the tests for unfairness would be valid business reasons i.e. closure of a site or making losses could be construed as a valid business reason....reducing staff to + increase on existing huge profits ?

[teaboy2]

Re: Unfair redundancy

Yes I concur. Technically I would say it is invalid but I always like to try focus on mistakes of material fact. In this case I think it probably does invalidate the process somewhat.

The appeal correspondence from the employer tries to rectify their mistake by naming the 'actual' role being made redundant but referring it as 'commonly known' as the role they identified in the notice letter.

Reading it is a bit unprofessional and cringe worthy tbh.

There appear to be a number of similar roles in the same dept. The role titles are slightly different but there is clear inter-operability between each of them and tasks change hands amongst them. I understand on a matrix scheme there are newer members etc

However it's the only role in that dept selected for consultation and targetted for redundancy. A history of grievance and issues with the line manager....makes it all appear a fait accompli and opportunity to try get rid.

They have spoken and been through to ACAS and it would now have to go to ET. I am trying to help sort through these papers but it struck me if the notice is incorrect I would imagine the process would be knocked back?

I would also have thought one of the tests for unfairness would be valid business reasons i.e. closure of a site or making losses could be construed as a valid business reason....reducing staff to + increase on existing huge profits ?

Sounds like unfair dismissal to me as a result of them targeting your friend due to grievances with line manager etc. What happened with the grievances, who selected your friends (i'll refer to them as X from now on) role for redundancy, was line manager ask to select someone from his/her department?

Can you give more details as to similarities between X role and Roles filled by others, would it been deemed same job title, description elsewhere or to a person of reasonable mind?

What was specific reason given for need to make redundancy? Know you said it was to cut overheads but thats only valid reason if company is running at a loss and at risk of insolvency, as their are alternative ways to cut overheads and all avenues most be explored first, redundacy being last resort! Plus how is one redundancy going to cut overheads, when profit week in week out can vary largerly and one persons weekly/monthly wage packet isn't going to have any effect on that! If anything the extra work others would have to do would increase overtime pay!

[krypton]

Re: Unfair redundancy

His line manager made the selection and yes to someone of reasonable mind it does stick out as targetted.

Yes there is similarity in the roles e.g. as in account manager, new account manager , regional account manager etc etc. There is evidence of work/responsibility regularly passing from one to another as well as it is all the same team etc

Interestingly the area he covers was the only one actually consistently performing well in comparison to his compatriots. The employer states his role was standalone/unique hence being the only one being selected but cite duplication for the reason for redundancy? There's no evidence of duplicated work provided.

I'm having real disbelief on what I am reading.....