The Motor Forum

Stuntman · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:00 am Post subject: Employment tale of woe - update

Had my consultation meeting today. Salient points are:

The reason behind the proposal is "to cut costs within the group"
It's only my role at risk
They propose to lose my role and create a new role at a more junior level which would cover 'some elements' of my current role
The company did not set or apply selection criteria when making this decision
They said "it's the company's decision that it can make and has chosen to make it in the economic climate"
They had not considered making me part-time
They had not considered 'bumping' me into someone else's role and thereby displacing them rather than me
I've been there less than 2 years so am not entitled to any redundancy pay
I have 3 months' notice in my contract
I have not been offered a compromise agreement.

My feeling is that I will not be able to save my job, and my options are probably as follows:

See if I can remain employed part time on (at worst) my current pay pro rata
Be made redundant and sue for unfair dismissal on the grounds that the consultation and procedure are unfair, flawed, etc
Be made redundant and push for additional pay by means of a compromise agreement.

It stinks. I feel shit. But I am virtually certain the writing is on the wall, and it's just going to be about when they get rid of me. So how much stomach do I have for a a fight, or should I just try to get a bit more income.

Thoughts anyone? Much appreciated as always.
_________________
Drifting through life

gonnabuildabuggy · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:11 am Post subject:

Sorry to hear your news, i guess it was expected which might soften the blow.

To me options 2 and 3 are the ones I'd go for and they are kind of the same - i.e. I 'd always go for a settlement but if not reasonable push further.

You need legal advice and from an employment specialist.

Did they put all this in writing to you?

I think the one loophole to hang on is the "junior role with elements of your job" - this sounds like "get someone cheaper".

Good luck, and if the battle is hard we're here to support.

Failing that tell us who they are and we'll all bad mouth them to our companies/suppliers/clients.

On the upside - good excel modelling skills are a very useful commodity to have.
_________________
Aint no substitute for cubic inches.

Stuntman · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:24 am Post subject:

I asked some very direct and specific questions, and I will be receiving the minutes from the meeting in the next couple of days.

You're right that I need to get some legal advice.

Cheers - off to bed now. Just been to see Stewart Lee, I needed a laugh after the day I've had!
_________________
Drifting through life

gonnabuildabuggy · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:28 am Post subject:

Make sure you write up your own minutes now as well as theirs might "forget" a few items and it's always easier when fresh in your mind
_________________
Aint no substitute for cubic inches.

Rodge · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:38 am Post subject:

Sorry to hear about your situation Stunters. I'll be unemployed a month on Wednesday. I was laid off because I couldn't do a job that I wasn't required to do.
I was the most experienced and they kept guys with less experience who had the other skill. They laid off the other experienced guy too and now they're stuck if any machines break as they have no one who can do high level maintenance on them.
I also found out that by Irish law, if they replace my position or get someone in to do my job, I can claim for unfair dismissal. They won't be able to train anyone up for 6 months because of this law either.
I pointed out the flaws in my bosses logic and he realised he'd made a mistake, but that's not going to bother me now.
I also told him that the other skill is useless if everything is broken but to be honest, it was like talking to a wall.
I'm studying again and am mostly enjoying it, except for having to put alot of time into it.

I decided not to appeal it because I got a great package from it and they will be closing the factory next year and offering worse packages.

Get legal advice. Weigh up your options carefully and remember it's not the end of the world even if you are laid off.
_________________

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm...ds.individual&VideoID=2869045

Roadsterstu · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:29 am Post subject:

Sorry to hear the news. I'd try and get some legal advice, at least so you know where you stand and what your rights are.

One thing that struck me - if the new, more junior role will cover some elements of your role, who will cover the other elements not covered by the junior role? Are they elements the company don't need? Or elements another, existing role will be forced to do, at no additional renumeration?

Not that that is your issue to worry about, granted, but just an observation.
_________________
V8, RWD, no traction control...

woof woof · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:59 am Post subject:

Stunt, your current lot , fook 'em. The world is your oyster and your playground. Move on to better things.

Good luck.
_________________
woof woof's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."

Confucius says "all reckless speeding is caused by accidents."

Big TC · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:08 am Post subject:

It sounds like the sort of situation that used to be created by a supplies company in the dental industry a few years ago. They'd find spurious reasons for getting rid of a lot of their sales team, just before they'd been employed for 2 years. Then they found out eventually that they had trouble in recruiting new people....

I'll echo others comments made on here, Stunters: get some legal advice. I hope it works out ok for you, but I suspect that may not be with your current employers.
_________________

It's a '57 Pontiac Star Chief, dontchaknow.

Twelfth Monkey · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:28 am Post subject:

We retain the services of a solicitor regarding employment matters; I have the feeling she could be persuaded to have a quick chat with you gratis if we pretend that you are a client. Let me know if the idea appeals and I'll see if it's possible.
_________________
"Accident Blackspot"? These aren't accidents. They're throwing themselves into the road gladly. Throwing themselves into the road to escape all this hideousness.'

Roadrunner · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:36 am Post subject:

As others have suggested, it looks to me like they want to replace you with someone cheaper, who will actually end up doing the same job. Therefore your job will not have been made redundant, therefore a clear case of unfair dismissal. I think it would be worthwhile taking up Twelfth's kind offer.

Hope you get it sorted. As is often the case, you might find that leaves you better off than you were before.
_________________
"Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble." Henry Royce

woof woof · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:56 am Post subject:

That's an excellent and generous offer 12th. Well done.

Stunt, I was about to suggest contacting either a union or ACAS. I spoke to ACAS once* and they were very helpful. If you haven't got the time or will to fight I'm sure that ACAS can take the burden from you and protect your rights as well as they are able.

*In my case I was trying to gather ammunition to get myself made redundant, they completely misunderstood and wanted to save my job and seemed very helpful and very keen to ensure that my rights were protected.
_________________
woof woof's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."

Confucius says "all reckless speeding is caused by accidents."

scamper · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:02 pm Post subject:

Have you seen their Redundancy Policy?

If they need to cut costs, they need to provide a bit more detailed information than just coming up with your role and have not supplied a selection criteria, which i suppose if difficult if its just one person.

More specifically they appear not to have consulted you fully ie asked for your suggestions as to how to avoid a redundancy ie reduced hours, reduced pay, cost cutting. The fact they have not given consideration to any of this themselves shows their consultation process is flawed.

PG · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:36 pm Post subject:

I asked our HR manager about your situation. Her input -

How long have you been in your job? The 2 year period for qualifying is now actually one year, and your notice period counts, even if you don't work it. So if you have been there more than 9 months, your 9 months plus 3 months notice takes you over 12 months and you have all your rights.

If you have your rights, they must first have asked you to a preliminary meeting where you are told that your job is under threat of redundancy. Thereafter you have another meeting at which the position is confirmed that you are redundant. They must be able to give you written reasons for your job being made redundant and then the reasons that you are selected. It sounds like their argument in your case is - they are downgrading your job, you are therefore overqualified for the new role, they should have considered you for other vacancies (they will say their are none) and so you are redundant. If you have over 12 months, fight for more cash as they did not give you this written reason and some of their reasoning and process may be suspect ("it's only you", when they should say it's only one job change) might be open to challenge.

If you don't have the years service, unless you can claim on grounds of race or sex, you are not in a great position. Assuming no race / sex reasons (perhaps you are being bullied by a domineering lesbian boss who hates men?) you can't take an employer to a tribunal if you have less than 12 months service. And you don;t get redundancy either. They must pay you your notice period.

Our HR manager recommended a shit hot employment lawyer based in Selly Park, Birmingham. If you want this lawyers details PM me.

Gurney · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:56 pm Post subject:

I can add nothing but my sympathy and support Stunters. Obviously legal advice seems a no brainer in view of what PG says and of course Twelfth's offer.

Good luck leastways.
_________________
A Gentleman: Def: A male of the species who can play the Trombone.

But refrains from doing so.

Humphrey The Pug · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:39 pm Post subject:

Same from me as Gurney, all the best and good luck.

I was made "redundant" three years ago this December and they completely ballsed up the procedure, no consultation, no chat about how costs could be cut, no alternative emplyment suggestions and no reasoning behind why me there were at least two others that should have gone before me based on my performance.

I just accepted it and moved on, my face didn't fit, that's why I went. I had grounds for unfair dismissaal but just decided to put it behind me and crack on with looking for a new job.

They filled mine and my other colleagues position two months later by taking on additional staff.
_________________
Mummy, Daddy, Sissy, Sassy Baby.

Parm · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:47 pm Post subject:

Sorry to hear this Dan. Hope it all works out for you. 12th's offer is very generous - well done that man!
_________________

Stuntman · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:00 pm Post subject:

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and very kind offers.

Just to be clear - the company gave me a letter on Monday 26 Oct stating that my role was at risk of redundancy - see my earlier thread. The meeting on Tuesday (3 Nov) was the consultation meeting, where they told me the stuff I've set out here.

I will have another meeting with them next Wednesday (11 Nov), and they expect to confirm whether or not my job is to be made redundant the following day.

I have gone back to them today with my suggestions about how to avoid the redundancy:

The cost saving will be relatively minimal (only my role is affected, there won't be any change to total headcount, they'll tie up management time writing a job spec, dealing with agencies and conducting interviews and they will probably have to pay a recruitment agency fee) - at most the cost saving would be £50k pa and the company makes c. £10 million profit pa.

During the 16 mths I've been there, I have provided the group with analysis that has enabled us to save several million pounds in deferred consideration (payments to vendors of acquired companies) and enabled us to generate additional income of several hundred thousand pounds. There are plenty more areas within the business that I could investigate regarding income generation.

So it could be argued that getting rid of my role will worsen the group's future results.

They've come back to me today and said that they are putting together a compromise agreement and aim to give that to me by the end of this week. I'll see what they're proposing.

Twelfth - cheers. I'll think about this over the next couple of days and PM you before Saturday either way.
_________________
Drifting through life

Stuntman · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:18 pm Post subject:

Oh by the way - the company does not have a redundancy policy (I asked directly) - despite having gone through four rounds of redundancies over the past 11 months. I know enough about those prior processes to be fairly sure that what they are doing in my case is different.

What I'm not sure about legally is whether the company must set and apply selection criteria even when the company is proposing to make just a single role redundant.

They seem adamant that they do not have to apply selection criteria (they say it is only required where people are doing the same job), and therefore cannot/will not tell me how they have reached their decision. I disagree, and think they have to show why my job has been selected and that it has been selected fairly and reasonably.

If that is indeed lawful then it's hard to attack them on the grounds of procedure. At this stage I am probably obliged to give them the benefit of the doubt until the meeting next Wednesday, and see how they have considered my alternative proposals.

They have said that 'some elements' of my role will be done by the replacement role (but as yet have not written the job description for the new role). They have implied that the other work that I currently do will no longer be done. Their problem with this is that it's difficult to define my role - I have never been given a job description, nor objectives, and my workload and priorities change from week to week depending on the whims and urgencies of the directors and senior managers.

Hey ho. Let's see how much cash they may offer me. But I'm still fighting to keep my job in its current form.
_________________
Drifting through life

Guitar Zero · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:40 pm Post subject:

Why would you want to keep a job with a company who don't want you to stay ?

Play them for as much money as possible and move on.
_________________
Previous convictions :

2006 Focus ST 2.5
2001 BMW 520i
2002 Focus 2.0 zetec
1999 Fiat Punto

Stuntman · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:45 pm Post subject:

Indeed - but in the short term I don't want to end up with an income of zero if I'm out of work for a while. Last time it took me nearly 5 months to get a job, and it wasn't actually a suitable job (I resigned during my probationary period and left after 3 months).

I'd rather keep my job and leave once I've found another one that's suitable. I'm looking.
_________________
Drifting through life

Guitar Zero · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:47 pm Post subject:

Fair enough
_________________
Previous convictions :

2006 Focus ST 2.5
2001 BMW 520i
2002 Focus 2.0 zetec
1999 Fiat Punto

gonnabuildabuggy · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:21 pm Post subject:

scamper · Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:14 am Post subject:

There is of course a difference between selection criteria for deciding the pool of employees and the selection criteria for actual redundancy from that pool.

With the former it is it a case of general cost cutting or the role is now redundant? (what your job entails in practice is as important as what your job spec does or does not include). If there is no evidence of pool selection process, its possibly unfair dismissal.

Twelfth Monkey · Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:35 am Post subject:

Dan, I cleared it with my partners this morning, so if you want to have a chat with Ruth it's fine.

I have my profile set up so that I am notified of PMs, but haven't been receiving such notifications recently; can only assume our spam filter is catching them. A roundabout way of saying that if I take a day or two to respond, it's not because I'm ignoring you.
_________________
"Accident Blackspot"? These aren't accidents. They're throwing themselves into the road gladly. Throwing themselves into the road to escape all this hideousness.'

garry · Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:58 am Post subject:

gonnabuildabuggy · Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:08 pm Post subject:

Racing · Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:00 pm Post subject:

Frank Bullitt · Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:45 pm Post subject:

I can offer no words of wisdom Dan as it appears your emplyer has seen the benefits of what you can do and decided to take the money and run, so to speak.

However, wherever this goes good luck
_________________
Shame your mind don't shine like your possessions