I'll try to keep this brief/vague due for obvious reasons..
My girlfriend's company has been bought out 'proper' by their sister/parent company in the US. Obviously this means a mass cull of staff here in the UK.
My girlfriend's team has been restructured to remove most of the junior staff, keep the managers (her) and their department head. Usual yank way of keeping the upper management and getting rid of everyone that actually, you know, does the work
Turns out the redundancy package is actually very good (probably another reason to keep the 'expensive/experienced' people) and considering my girlfriend has been there for more than 5 years (I'm being vague on purpose here), together with the lump sum, two months notice she could have been in line for something nearly equivalent to a years salary in cash. Problem is, they have mapped her role to an 'equivalent' role in the US structure.
And there endeth her chances, apparently. She absolutely wants to leave and has made it clear that she will in the new year (to her line manager). The equivalent team in the US are useless, not qualified and generally have a terrible standard of work. The role she has been mapped to is not-even equivalent to the role she had when she joined, it is essentially a two-grade demotion if you read the role profile. So she is absolutely gutted. Having a great redundancy package waved in front of you, being absolutely clear that you want to leave the job. Then not getting it. How gutting
So, she's started arguing against the mapping of her role. How they have taken away her line management etc, how more than 30% of her role has changed. Problem is, they don't agree 30% or more has changed - they just refute that fact. They've now come back and said to her that if she wishes to argue it further, she has to raise a grievance with HR and that will be treated separately from the main consultation that everyone else is going through. The kicker of that means that if she wins, she may not be eligible for the great redundancy package that everyone else is getting.
My question is, can that be correct?
Their argument is that she has been mapped to a role, therefore her job is safe. If she raises a grievance with HR they are saying it is a separate issue. How can that possibly be the case? She is arguing against the mapping of her role which is part of the ongoing consultation
Does anyone have any experience with this? She now has a dilemma of taking this on with a grievance where they may turn round and say "ok you're right, your role is redundant and here is your statutory minimum package" and getting royally screwed over before Christmas She is tempted to forget it and stay until the new year, as she gets a Christmas bonus which is likely to be bigger than statutory min redundancy package.
Redundancy has to be the most unfair thing ever
My girlfriend's company has been bought out 'proper' by their sister/parent company in the US. Obviously this means a mass cull of staff here in the UK.
My girlfriend's team has been restructured to remove most of the junior staff, keep the managers (her) and their department head. Usual yank way of keeping the upper management and getting rid of everyone that actually, you know, does the work
Turns out the redundancy package is actually very good (probably another reason to keep the 'expensive/experienced' people) and considering my girlfriend has been there for more than 5 years (I'm being vague on purpose here), together with the lump sum, two months notice she could have been in line for something nearly equivalent to a years salary in cash. Problem is, they have mapped her role to an 'equivalent' role in the US structure.
And there endeth her chances, apparently. She absolutely wants to leave and has made it clear that she will in the new year (to her line manager). The equivalent team in the US are useless, not qualified and generally have a terrible standard of work. The role she has been mapped to is not-even equivalent to the role she had when she joined, it is essentially a two-grade demotion if you read the role profile. So she is absolutely gutted. Having a great redundancy package waved in front of you, being absolutely clear that you want to leave the job. Then not getting it. How gutting
So, she's started arguing against the mapping of her role. How they have taken away her line management etc, how more than 30% of her role has changed. Problem is, they don't agree 30% or more has changed - they just refute that fact. They've now come back and said to her that if she wishes to argue it further, she has to raise a grievance with HR and that will be treated separately from the main consultation that everyone else is going through. The kicker of that means that if she wins, she may not be eligible for the great redundancy package that everyone else is getting.
My question is, can that be correct?
Their argument is that she has been mapped to a role, therefore her job is safe. If she raises a grievance with HR they are saying it is a separate issue. How can that possibly be the case? She is arguing against the mapping of her role which is part of the ongoing consultation Does anyone have any experience with this? She now has a dilemma of taking this on with a grievance where they may turn round and say "ok you're right, your role is redundant and here is your statutory minimum package" and getting royally screwed over before Christmas
She is tempted to forget it and stay until the new year, as she gets a Christmas bonus which is likely to be bigger than statutory min redundancy package.Redundancy has to be the most unfair thing ever
