Tweet
Hi,
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post as an employer so apologies if not and please feel free to remove my post.
I've been working in HR for 1.5 years so still relatively junior and have recently been left on my own after the resignation of my line manager, meaning the HR Dept now exists of...me! Anyhow, I'm handling my first redundancy situation at present (1 role - post skills matrix selection), my CIPD studies are helping and I'm comfortable with the process we've followed so far. I am however after some advice from other HR practitioners.
We're now half way through consultation with the individual at risk and there's a new role coming up with the business which will be signed off very soon and would be a suitable alternative for this individual. It hasn't been signed off or advertised yet as the role is due to a new product launch, the new product hasn't been announced, therefore neither has the role. I believe that based on info I have, the role will likely be signed off and advertised around the same week that the employee serves their final weeks notice or maybe the week after! Convenient!
I'm concerned that the employee will view the timing of the role being advertised as a little too convenient - when genuinely we just cannot discuss it with her now due to the confidentiality of the new product launch (and the fact our MD hasn't signed the role off).
Now - the "yet to be advertised" role is in fact very similar to the role the employee at risk currently performs. The difference is that the employees current role works under one business unit and that business unit needs to lose a head for budget reasons, whereas the new role would be working under a different business unit that does require the role.
Now logic tells me that we should extend said employees consultation period to allow for the new role to be signed off and advertised so that we can offer this role (which we would) to the individual whilst they are on consultation. This is to me a lot safer and more cost effective (an extra months salary) than a tribunal claim for unfair dismissal based on the fact that the employee views our advert, advertising for practically the same role they were made redundant from, just within a different business unit.
Now it could be argued that as the role isn't live and may not be live until after said employee exits, they would not have a case to claim. However, we know about this role now and that it is very much an imminent requirement, so I'm inclined to edge with caution on this one.
Would you extend consultation to allow for discussions about the suitable alternative role that has not yet been signed off?
Thanks
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post as an employer so apologies if not and please feel free to remove my post.
I've been working in HR for 1.5 years so still relatively junior and have recently been left on my own after the resignation of my line manager, meaning the HR Dept now exists of...me! Anyhow, I'm handling my first redundancy situation at present (1 role - post skills matrix selection), my CIPD studies are helping and I'm comfortable with the process we've followed so far. I am however after some advice from other HR practitioners.
We're now half way through consultation with the individual at risk and there's a new role coming up with the business which will be signed off very soon and would be a suitable alternative for this individual. It hasn't been signed off or advertised yet as the role is due to a new product launch, the new product hasn't been announced, therefore neither has the role. I believe that based on info I have, the role will likely be signed off and advertised around the same week that the employee serves their final weeks notice or maybe the week after! Convenient!
I'm concerned that the employee will view the timing of the role being advertised as a little too convenient - when genuinely we just cannot discuss it with her now due to the confidentiality of the new product launch (and the fact our MD hasn't signed the role off).
Now - the "yet to be advertised" role is in fact very similar to the role the employee at risk currently performs. The difference is that the employees current role works under one business unit and that business unit needs to lose a head for budget reasons, whereas the new role would be working under a different business unit that does require the role.
Now logic tells me that we should extend said employees consultation period to allow for the new role to be signed off and advertised so that we can offer this role (which we would) to the individual whilst they are on consultation. This is to me a lot safer and more cost effective (an extra months salary) than a tribunal claim for unfair dismissal based on the fact that the employee views our advert, advertising for practically the same role they were made redundant from, just within a different business unit.
Now it could be argued that as the role isn't live and may not be live until after said employee exits, they would not have a case to claim. However, we know about this role now and that it is very much an imminent requirement, so I'm inclined to edge with caution on this one.
Would you extend consultation to allow for discussions about the suitable alternative role that has not yet been signed off?
Thanks
Comment