Stuntman
|
Employment tale of woe - updateHad 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.
|
gonnabuildabuggy
|
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.
|
Stuntman
|
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!
|
gonnabuildabuggy
|
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
|
Rodge
|
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.
|
Roadsterstu
|
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.
|
woof woof
|
Stunt, your current lot , fook 'em. The world is your oyster and your playground. Move on to better things.
Good luck.
|
Big TC
|
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.
|
Twelfth Monkey
|
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.
|
Roadrunner
|
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.
|
woof woof
|
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.
|
scamper
|
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
|
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
|
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.
|
Humphrey The Pug
|
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.
|
Parm
|
Sorry to hear this Dan. Hope it all works out for you. 12th's offer is very generous - well done that man!
|
Stuntman
|
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.
|
Stuntman
|
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.
|
Guitar Zero
|
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.
|
Stuntman
|
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.
|
Guitar Zero
|
Fair enough
|
gonnabuildabuggy
|
| Stuntman wrote: | | 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 is an obvious question here - "if I've done this for you (employer) I'm self-funding, why are you making me redundant?"
And perhaps a proposal - "I'll take a 50% pay cut but 10% of any savings identified."
Also out of interest is the MD/CEO aware of this, if you really want to keep your job then an appeal to a higher authority might work, someone who is looking at the bigger picture, not trying to cust costs for a year. On the upside a deal of some kind sounds like they've some compassion?
However.....as GZ says, if that's their attitude then why stay there?
My own experience was different in one way in that all was done by the board but as with you I could demonstrate high competence and ROI, indeed senior management questioned why I was allowed to be let go yet only two people (MD & Sales director of sister business) actually tried to do anything about it. Bottom line is if you work for someone else, you are viewed as disposable and you are a pawn in someone else's game...you either accept that or look for a way of earning that's under your own control.
One thought - your skill set is a valuable one, and one that people will pay highly for (thus making you more vulnerable due to your cost if you have a single employer) but few understand and truly value. You might find more secure employment in a consultancy or agency where you are viewed as a fee earning asset rather than just another cost.
Sorry if this is rambling but trying to help you view longer term options.
|
scamper
|
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
|
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.
|
garry
|
| Stuntman wrote: |
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. |
To me it seems pretty clear that they're trying to lose you because you're expensive (I'm assuming you're well paid vs the company norm) and perceived to be of marginal benefit (perhaps even if they recognise past benefit, they don't see what you can do over the next 12 months).
So sell yourself to them. Can you demostrate the savings you've made clearly and simply (and can you clearly show it was down to you)? Do the right people know about the benfits you've delivered? Can you draw up a plan showing how you're going to do similar things over the next 12 months?
|
gonnabuildabuggy
|
| garry wrote: | | Stuntman wrote: |
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. |
To me it seems pretty clear that they're trying to lose you because you're expensive (I'm assuming you're well paid vs the company norm) and perceived to be of marginal benefit (perhaps even if they recognise past benefit, they don't see what you can do over the next 12 months).
So sell yourself to them. Can you demostrate the savings you've made clearly and simply (and can you clearly show it was down to you)? Do the right people know about the benfits you've delivered? Can you draw up a plan showing how you're going to do similar things over the next 12 months? |
What I was trying to say but put far better.
|
Racing
|
| PG wrote: | 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. |
I'm not an employment lawyer but I've been helping a couple of friends lately find employment lawyers to help them with compromise agreements, and what PG says sounds valid to me from what I've heard.
I was shocked when I saw what the statutory redunduncy amount was. It is effectively capped at a very small amount.
Sorry to hear this.
|
Frank Bullitt
|
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
|
