Unfair redundancy

[teaboy2]

Re: Unfair redundancy

His line manager made the selection and yes to someone of reasonable mind it does stick out as targetted. - And there you have your answer my friend. Treating your friend less favorably as a result of past grievance against them - Victimisation = unfair dismissal

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 - Basically all account managers then, where all can do the same Job, just ones is allocated different customers to the other. So no different to all being account Managers. So redundancy matrix should have included them too! Sounds like the title role is being given on experience, as i bet they all have customer from all other the nation whos account they manage?!

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. - So first they say his work consistent and performing well in comparison to his colleagues (e.g. baby Accountie, mama Accountie) Now saying redundancy is due to duplication? Duplication of what work, or Role. Seek evidence of duplication of work!

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

Am not surprised your in disbelief, your not the only one lol.

Has he raised a grievance letter?

[krypton]

Re: Unfair redundancy

Well there's a lot to go on here. Yes, there are grievances upon grievances throughout the process...but it seems the company has increasingly clammed up and closed ranks.

It's ultimately ended in them serving notice with the wrong job title. The appeal response for example reads your role eg District Support has been made redundant also commonly known as ABC eg Account Manager.

Normally one would say it could have been an administrative error but for them to explain it as such clearly has different connotations.

I've checked back and they've notified him they are making the role of Account Manager redundant. That title and duties would then equally apply to a number of individuals in his dept. Some who have joined the company after him and perform less favourably

The reason I ask the question is it a technicality or error in process because in this instance it opens up a serious can of worms

[teaboy2]

Re: Unfair redundancy

Usually it would be a technicality, but as theirs so much more in the background here including victimisation (i.e. treating your friend less favorably than others by selecting him for redundancy, and the selection being made by the line manager whom your friend has previously issued grievances against)

Yes the other Account Managers should be included the redundancy selection process too, but again back at the different variations of the Titles they use for each Account Manager, but they could resolve that by including all such variations of the role titles.

In most cases of cost cutting its last one in first one out. As less redundancy money would be paid to last one in since they worked there for shorter period of time.

[krypton]

Re: Unfair redundancy

Yes agree. They could for example have selected the lot and earmarked one role to go. As it stands it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Apparently two joined more recently so LIFO would see those two go before him anyway.

This one has got victimisation written all over it.

[teaboy2]

Re: Unfair redundancy

Exactly it stinks of victimisation!

As yes the LIFO rule should have been applied in the selection process, especially if your friend is consistently out performing them.

[krypton]

Re: Unfair redundancy

Ok, things have progressed. There has been some without prejudice discussion but unsatisfactory outcome so far. Soon reaching the point there is now the real chance of an ET going ahead.

The company however now wishes to hold a without prejudice meeting to discuss further and have now offered a very senior person to attend. I read that as someone with more clout to make a decision lol.

It could be a delay tactic. Maybe worth getting a solicitor to attend at this stage? So far we seem to be doing just fine....

[teaboy2]

Re: Unfair redundancy

If they are without prejudice then it means such meetings and what is said, offered etc can not be used against them. Yes it could be a delaying tactic as they can also not be used as last cause of action, but then unfair redundancy is automatic unfair dismissal, so time limit for claiming to ET does not apply. Though i would be applying now regardless, as you can always withdraw should the next meeting have a satisfactory outcome.

[krypton]

Re: Unfair redundancy

Well...the meeting turned out to be absolute time wasting nonsense. No surprise there.....