Tweet
Hi everyone - sorry that my first post is one requiring help but I'm really confused as to whether I have a case or not.
I will apologise that it is a bit long winded but it's complicated. After 23 years service I have received a letter stating that my position is at risk of redundancy and a period of consultation that was anticipated to be approximately 3 weeks would now be commenced. The rationale is that my role (payroll) is being moved to one of our other sites to improve efficiency, confidentiality & compliance with law. The letter stated that the company was anticipating making redundancies (plural). I was asked to give some thought to alternative employment which would be considered.
Here is where background info is probably needed. 5 years ago the MD called me into an office and showed me a contract he had signed with an outsourcing company who would be doing all the company HR moving forward and that with immediate effect my hours and salary would be reduced by 50% and I would only be responsible for the salary/benefits part of the role. Once I heaved my jaw off my chest, I tried to explain that we would still need someone to process the paperwork as the outsourcing company were only there to provide advice and ensure our documentation was compliant. At no time was redundancy mentioned, I was careful not to use the word and said I needed time to think about the conversation. Needless to say he went away and took his own advice and found out that I had a good case for unfair dismissal. At no time did I threaten legal action as I wanted to keep my job. The outcome was that I negotiated a better than 50% salary and an agreement that I would do whatever hours it took to do the role (as there were inevitably peaks and troughs in workload over the tax year).
Then 2 years ago, the MD decided that for financial reasons he wanted to close our Head Office in the South. The 5 employees had the choice of relocating to the distribution base in the Midlands (which is where the Head Office back office function was to transfer) or be home based. Out of 5 employees, 3 of us (including me) agreed to be home based, one had already resigned and the fifth person resigned as they didn't want to work from home and took redundancy.
Since then all quiet until the recent letter.
I have had a first consultation meeting (held by a 3rd party from the HR outsourcing company) and it's quite difficult to have a conversation with someone who can't answer your questions if they fall outside of the statement they've been given from your employer! They went away to find out the information to answer my queries which were;
It transpires that I am the only person who is being made redundant (it was a mistake on the letter) and there is denial that it is for financial reasons, just that it will be better for the company to have the role in the place where most queries stem from, thereby flattening a layer of reporting. I disagree that is where most of the queries come from and it represents less than 50% of the workforce. There is a total workforce of 44 people and 15 of those work from a home base and 10 from another location, so there are still 25 people who would have to ring/post/email for advice, info etc rather than waltz across the office to speak to someone.
I haven't been told who is going to be performing the role, but reading between the lines - there is a part time person currently doing the admin (including HR) at the chosen location so either they are going to increase their hours to take over payroll/benefits or another person is going to be employed to be based there and do the role (I was given a proposed organisation chart and it showed Payroll & Benefits as a separate role).
My gut feeling is that the MD has been looking for a way to 'lose' me from the company since he reduced my role 5 years ago and I had the audacity to challenge the rationale behind it. I know that companies can reorganise/restructure to make things more efficient and if this role was being absorbed into another role then I would have less ground but I don't see how it can be and although it probably will be cheaper they are denying that financial reasons are behind the action yet the rationale doesn't make complete sense either.
Am I missing something?
Sorry I said it would be a long post but felt it is so complicated it would be wrong to ask for advice without trying to give the whole history.
Thanks
I will apologise that it is a bit long winded but it's complicated. After 23 years service I have received a letter stating that my position is at risk of redundancy and a period of consultation that was anticipated to be approximately 3 weeks would now be commenced. The rationale is that my role (payroll) is being moved to one of our other sites to improve efficiency, confidentiality & compliance with law. The letter stated that the company was anticipating making redundancies (plural). I was asked to give some thought to alternative employment which would be considered.
Here is where background info is probably needed. 5 years ago the MD called me into an office and showed me a contract he had signed with an outsourcing company who would be doing all the company HR moving forward and that with immediate effect my hours and salary would be reduced by 50% and I would only be responsible for the salary/benefits part of the role. Once I heaved my jaw off my chest, I tried to explain that we would still need someone to process the paperwork as the outsourcing company were only there to provide advice and ensure our documentation was compliant. At no time was redundancy mentioned, I was careful not to use the word and said I needed time to think about the conversation. Needless to say he went away and took his own advice and found out that I had a good case for unfair dismissal. At no time did I threaten legal action as I wanted to keep my job. The outcome was that I negotiated a better than 50% salary and an agreement that I would do whatever hours it took to do the role (as there were inevitably peaks and troughs in workload over the tax year).
Then 2 years ago, the MD decided that for financial reasons he wanted to close our Head Office in the South. The 5 employees had the choice of relocating to the distribution base in the Midlands (which is where the Head Office back office function was to transfer) or be home based. Out of 5 employees, 3 of us (including me) agreed to be home based, one had already resigned and the fifth person resigned as they didn't want to work from home and took redundancy.
Since then all quiet until the recent letter.
I have had a first consultation meeting (held by a 3rd party from the HR outsourcing company) and it's quite difficult to have a conversation with someone who can't answer your questions if they fall outside of the statement they've been given from your employer! They went away to find out the information to answer my queries which were;
- Which other roles are being made redundant?
- Could I have a fuller explanation of their rationale - because I don't agree that it is sound.
It transpires that I am the only person who is being made redundant (it was a mistake on the letter) and there is denial that it is for financial reasons, just that it will be better for the company to have the role in the place where most queries stem from, thereby flattening a layer of reporting. I disagree that is where most of the queries come from and it represents less than 50% of the workforce. There is a total workforce of 44 people and 15 of those work from a home base and 10 from another location, so there are still 25 people who would have to ring/post/email for advice, info etc rather than waltz across the office to speak to someone.
I haven't been told who is going to be performing the role, but reading between the lines - there is a part time person currently doing the admin (including HR) at the chosen location so either they are going to increase their hours to take over payroll/benefits or another person is going to be employed to be based there and do the role (I was given a proposed organisation chart and it showed Payroll & Benefits as a separate role).
My gut feeling is that the MD has been looking for a way to 'lose' me from the company since he reduced my role 5 years ago and I had the audacity to challenge the rationale behind it. I know that companies can reorganise/restructure to make things more efficient and if this role was being absorbed into another role then I would have less ground but I don't see how it can be and although it probably will be cheaper they are denying that financial reasons are behind the action yet the rationale doesn't make complete sense either.
Am I missing something?
Sorry I said it would be a long post but felt it is so complicated it would be wrong to ask for advice without trying to give the whole history.
Thanks
) xx
Comment