Redundancy advice please.

[dowie]

I highly doubt they would want to get rid of someone if they were good in the workplace. That’s the reason companies exist.

Maybe he has done something that they don’t like and they not saying? People can be strange.

It’s obviously a money saving exercise.

it is a redundancy, you could have a team of people who are all good but if you need to get rid of some then you're inevitably going to get rid of people who are competent/good but perhaps score lower than the others (as a result of both a combination of their ability on the job, time served etc..)

so the comments about has he been given time to improve are perhaps misplaced/irrelevant - if he's had positive appraisals then there isn't likely an issue there - he's not under a personal development plan/forced to improve before being sacked but rather some jobs are being made redundant and that isn't necessarily a negative reflection on the individuals who end up redundant

Well that's the sneaky thing that they have done here, is offer these guys a suitable alternative position and if they turn it down they lose their right to statutory redundancy pay.

Win win for the company

Why is that sneaky? Surely if he wants to work for the company then an offer of a suitable alternative role is a good thing usually? If he doesn't want to work for the company then he should be in the process of looking for another job and leaving anyway.

 

[Energize]

I don't see anything amiss, the criteria are pretty reasonable. Better to start putting effort into new job applications.

 

[x-st]

They can't use Length of Service as a criteria for selection because it discriminates based upon age. And I agree that there is a lot of subjectivity based in the some of the others (I'm not even sure how you can objectively measure efficiency). Speaking from personal experience, if they want you gone then generally your card is marked...unless you can prove that they're discriminating against you or making unfair choices that are biased against you (and getting that proof is tough), it's nigh on impossible to win any kind of victory against your employer. He should probably think about getting as good a reference as he can and then look at potential new employment opportunities.

 

[Energize]

They can't use Length of Service as a criteria for selection because it discriminates based upon age. And I agree that there is a lot of subjectivity based in the some of the others (I'm not even sure how you can objectively measure efficiency). Speaking from personal experience, if they want you gone then generally your card is marked...unless you can prove that they're discriminating against you or making unfair choices that are biased against you (and getting that proof is tough), it's nigh on impossible to win any kind of victory against your employer. He should probably think about getting as good a reference as he can and then look at potential new employment opportunities.

It's not so clear cut as that, if length of service were to be used as the sole factor then yes it could potentially be viewed as discriminatory because it could be used to discriminate against younger staff. But when used as one of many factors it is clear that the employer is not discriminating based on the age of the staff.

 

[x-st]

But when used as one of many factors it is clear that the employer is not discriminating based on the age of the staff.

I'll admit my ignorance because It seems like I've been in a constant battle at work over things like this. I'm not clear how it could be used as a factor because of that link to age...if you're using it as a weighting tool then surely claims of discrimination could be made, whether they're true or not. Would seem that it's not a criteria that's very easy to use in any kind of decision making process.

 

[Energize]

I'll admit my ignorance because It seems like I've been in a constant battle at work over things like this. I'm not clear how it could be used as a factor because of that link to age...if you're using it as a weighting tool then surely claims of discrimination could be made, whether they're true or not. Would seem that it's not a criteria that's very easy to use in any kind of decision making process.

If you have a number of employees of all different ages and lengths of service being laid off there is no real case that can be made to suggest that length of service is being used to discriminate based on age. While on the other hand it makes perfect business sense to choose to continue to do business with the employees that have shown the greatest loyalty and dedication to the company through greater length of service when all other factors such as performance have been considered.

 

[The_Abyss]

Playing devil's advocate, it also pays some companies to select the longer serving employees for redundancy if they want to introduce a cultural shift or other significant change. I'm not suggesting that in relation to what's happening in this situation though.

 

[Caged]

Surely if he has a solid appraisal then the three scores that relate to job performance should reflect that?

 

[HangTime]

He hasn't had any opportunities to improve simply because he hasn't had any negative feedback about his performance.

Not looking to derail the thread, but lack of negative feedback isn't an outright blocker to improvement opportunities.

 

[byteagig]

Not looking to derail the thread, but lack of negative feedback isn't an outright blocker to improvement opportunities.

True but if you aren't told that you are **** at your job and that the managers think you are, then you don't have an opportunity to rectify that. You just carry on thinking you are doing fine.
If they tell you that they think you are bad then at least you have the choice or chance to improve.

 

[A2Z]

Playing devil's advocate, it also pays some companies to select the longer serving employees for redundancy if they want to introduce a cultural shift or other significant change. I'm not suggesting that in relation to what's happening in this situation though.

That's exactly what happened at my company a few years back. All the old timers got redundancy, then they re graded all the roles with 10%-15% less pay for basically the same job, and opened up promotions to replace all the people that left.

 

[Hotwired]

Seems like an awful lot of effort on their part just to save £1.70 per hour x 3???

You may not know all the changes they are making.

It might be a new contract with new terms. Perhaps changing rates for overtime, sick pay, holiday. Maybe other things.

Or it might be a small change to this role but it is part of a much larger cutting of costs and it was decided to get it all done together.

 

[P4Clock]

in my experience Redundancy is based on time at the company, more time served means it cost more to kick them out.
my company as total morons working there because they have move then 10 years service and it would have cost about £20,000 to lay them off. so they dumped the kids off that cost sub £1000.

 

[dowie]

True but if you aren't told that you are **** at your job and that the managers think you are, then you don't have an opportunity to rectify that. You just carry on thinking you are doing fine.
If they tell you that they think you are bad then at least you have the choice or chance to improve.

bit of a leap to assume they are **** at their job... they could well be OK at the job but just not as good as their peers... again it is a redundancy not someone being sacked after being put on a PDP