"Redundancy is not an option but you're welcome to hand your notice in"

[GhostWKD]

Hi all,

So... I had held back from posting this as was seeking legal advice but I'm still not 100% sure on what to do next and not particularly keen on spending a chunk of money on legal advice if it isn't going to generate a return on that investment.... did speak to some employee advice service people we have and the govt. free service for help with employment law but they weren't much use.

Basically, the company I work for has recently paid off {a largeish number} people following an acquisition by a turnaround specialist. The people were paid a settlement agreement rather than redundancy (although quite clearly this was an informal redundancy) and part of their agreement was that they couldn't disclose the details to others etc. I believe the settlement agreement was very generous FWIW.

So, I am currently working as a XXXXXX and YYYYYY manager (details removed, but these designations will stick - it's just a specialism) with 2 XXXXXX analysts reporting into me. I wrote the job spec for these analysts and recruited them. Have had the roles reporting to me for 2 1/2 years (since I took this job). My job spec states my role has 2x Senior Analysts direct management and 2x Analysts indirect management responsibility but that hasn't ever been the case sadly.

Following the {a largeish number} people paid a settlement agreement, they announced a restructure. I found out last week that within this restructure I will be given the role of XXXXXX analyst, working alongside the 2 people I currently directly line manage. This would mean I am responsible for 1 area out of 3 rather than maintaining responsibility across all business areas. I will be working for someone who has been given the title "Marketing YYYYYY and XXXXXX manager" - this person is either the same job grade as me or lower and until now has not had any team reporting to him.

I voiced my concerns that the analyst role is not the same as the manager role which I am currently doing and was told in a very rehearsed way (as other people in the same boat as me have been) that if I didn't like being assigned this role redundancy is not an option but that I was welcome to hand my notice in. They see the analyst role as a similar role to what I am doing.

I am currently waiting on a job description for my new role but that's not forthcoming.

My dilemma is that I am happy to go elsewhere job wise but I feel I should have been paid off along with the {a largeish number} people who were given settlement agreements or alternatively have been given the role managing this new team. The concern is that if I really push it I may get myself statutory redundancy which won't get me all that much and will start the ticking clock on finding something new. The other alternative is I lump the effective demotion and look elsewhere, happy to do that but I fear dropping back to 'Analyst' will negatively impact my career (I've not been an analyst for 8+ years on my CV).

Legal advice wise I've spoken to a couple of places that want a few hundred pounds for a first convo but frankly if I'm going to potentially be left with nothing but statutory redundancy I'm hesitant to do that as I really need to save the cash...

So people of OCUK, what would you do in this situation?

 

[mattx2]

I would work to rule, ask for flexi time and be a general pain in the **** to manage until they make an offer, I find something better or they fire me. In all three cases I would make a note of everything they do and say then look to build a case of constructive dismissal after

 

[Slam62]

if you can prove it is a significant change to the role, you may have a chance, but if they are paying you the same for the same hours then that would be difficult.

personally, if it was the same pay I would just accept it, the rumours of gigantic payoffs are worth nothing and most likely wrong

 

[Randomface74]

You don't have to write analyst on your CV if you don't want. I'd say start looking for a new job. A 'turnaround specialist' is another way of saying 'cost cutter' which is another way of saying 'bend employees over'.

 

[Gundam God]

No expert but this sounds like a significant change of job role and they should be offering:
a) new contract for you to agree to/sign though they need to make it worthwhile i.e. £££, or
b) keep existing job title whilst doing this new role i.e. same pay but potentially less demanding work, or
c) redundancy

However it seems like c wouldn't be possible, as it would cause them to be in breach of employment law, as you say they are hiring a new manager to take on effectively the same role.

In any case it might be worth looking around for a new job as this current employer seems to be taking the ****.

 

[dowie]

The other alternative is I lump the effective demotion and look elsewhere, happy to do that but I fear dropping back to 'Analyst' will negatively impact my career (I've not been an analyst for 8+ years on my CV).

Well ref that particular problem, send your CV out now with your current "Manager" job title, it is truthful at least at the point you send out the CV (assuming this job title change hasn't happened yet), I doubt anyone is going to quibble if you get a job and then have to explain that for a few weeks at the end of your several years as "manager" you also had the job title of analyst due to some reasons beyond your control.

Also if you do get a new job offer then I guess you can tell them that you are leaving and negotiate to keep your job title while you hand over.

 

[Semple]

I would suspect that if you're on the same pay grade and the other conditions of your employment haven't changed, then it would be hard to pursue any form of redundancy or constructive dismissal.

Have you got any wording in your contract about the company might change your role as they see fit / accommodating business needs etc?

I would say your only two choices would be to suck it up and carry on, or jump ship and look for something else.

Also Billy has a good point about this "turnaround specialist", that paints the picture that the business probably isn't doing so well, and would likely have an uncertain future.

 

[The_Abyss]

The people were paid a settlement agreement rather than redundancy (although quite clearly this was an informal redundancy) and part of their agreement was that they couldn't disclose the details to others etc.

These are effectively one and the same. The settlement agreement defines the terms of the redundancy and the departure, such as remaining notice, PILON, financial settlement, outstanding pension contributions, healthcare, payments or arrangements for retraining, reworking CVs etc etc.

 

[zola25]

I'm not sure if things have changed, but recall from previous re-organisations I've experienced that a role must match by at least 60% for you to map directly into it. A difference of 40% or more should mean redundancy is an option. The new job description is therefore key, as currently you're unable to quantify the difference between your old and new roles.

 

[Raumarik]

Personally given that they want you and others to report to someone with no management experience recently I'd leave. It's a red flag when a restructure results in changes like that, it means decisions on the structure are being driven by an individual somewhere and they want their friends in positions of power, rather than the best candidate.

I'd speak to a lawyer who specialises in employment law, get my CV out there ASAP and see if I can get a settlement from them before going. I'd keep quite about leaving for now and play along.

 

[d_brennen]

Take the hit and look elsewhere. Sad to say the management don't value you that much (as is usually the case until you leave). If you move fast enough you won't really have to change anything on your CV and no employment gap worth mentioning

 

[Weazle]

Screw them, if that is how you are treated then its best you start finding an employer that appreciates your abilities. You'll be much happier knowing that you are working a job on your terms and not reporting to a jobsworth.

 

[McPhee]

Free legal advice forum: http://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legal-forums/employment-law-issues

ACAS for disputes resolution: http://acas.org.uk

If you want legal advice and don't want to pay for it, try "no win, no fee" employment lawyers. The biggest upside of using them is you'll find out pretty quickly if you have a realistic chance of taking a case against your employer; they won't waste time on cases that have a low chance of success.

In the meantime, look for another job. You're not likely to want to stay there now, regardless of the outcome of any dispute resolution or legal action.

 

[PaulCa]

Having been through two redundancies recently, I would read the government employment webpages on the same.

There are stipulations in law. A few I remember are that if a large enough number are being made redundant there has to be a different process. Also during redundancies all potential candidates have to be treated with the same brush.

There are legal requirements for how much the redundancy has to be for, although the statutory amounts are a bit rubbish. For under 2 years you are only entitled to your final monthly pay. Beyond that it's only 1 weeks pay per year of service.

While it sounds dodgy that the company went for settlements rather than redundancy I'm sure they have got lawyers working between the lines to back it up. They may have got a better settlement than the statutory redundancy payment. Although I believe if the redundancy route is taken then people have more rights to fair process and consultation.

On the "gag orders", they have a hold on you financially and contractually while you work for the company and while you are waiting for money to be received but once everything is settled and you are out they have virtually no power over you. The test my solicitor placed on it was "What are they going to do if you breach it? Nothing they can do." In my case one of the "gag orders" asked me to sign away most of my employment rights to raise unfair dismissal claims etc. These will not stand in court as you cannot sign away your statutory rights.

In short then, there are always two sides to what employers try to put in a contract or agreement. 1. What they think they can get away with, intimidate and threaten you with and then there is 2. What will stand in an employment tribunal or in court.

That said. If you feel your only option is to make trouble, I would leave. If you make trouble you will make your own life difficult and raise animosity. You might keep your job but it will become untenable for you. Also be careful of the contract clause which usually states you cannot take or have brought against any action to the company. Thus is you attempt to sue or take legal action against them you immediately void your employment contract at the same time. This is standard procedure.

 

[PaulCa]

Free legal advice forum: http://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legal-forums/employment-law-issues

ACAS for disputes resolution: http://acas.org.uk

If you want legal advice and don't want to pay for it, try "no win, no fee" employment lawyers. The biggest upside of using them is you'll find out pretty quickly if you have a realistic chance of taking a case against your employer; they won't waste time on cases that have a low chance of success.

In the meantime, look for another job. You're not likely to want to stay there now, regardless of the outcome of any dispute resolution or legal action.

^^^ this.

Also, I believe you are entitled to 5 minutes of free legal advice under legal aid. During those 5 minutes the solicitor will tell you if you/your case qualifies for further legal aid or not. 5 minutes is enough for the solicitor to give you an honest answer as to whether he feels it would be worth taking the legal route or not.

 

[Pudney]

While it sounds dodgy that the company went for settlements rather than redundancy I'm sure they have got lawyers working between the lines to back it up. They may have got a better settlement than the statutory redundancy payment. Although I believe if the redundancy route is taken then people have more rights to fair process and consultation.

Settlements are normally the sensible pre-redundancy option. Overall it’s normally cheaper than redundancy, “fairer” to staff and much, much easier to operate.

 

[PaulCa]

Settlements are normally the sensible pre-redundancy option. Overall it’s normally cheaper than redundancy, “fairer” to staff and much, much easier to operate.

While I think that is true, the concern would be when you are told you can take the settlement or hand in your notice. The settlement should be offered an an option with redundancy as an opt out.

Otherwise it is simply trying to side step the complication of following the law by commencing redundancy proceedings.

I can see it being done fairly, if a department needs to downsize by 10% offering the settlement to people and seeing how many take it and if that is enough there is no need for redundancies.

But I can see it being done unfairly. Goldmann Sach's style. "Culling the herd". Forcibly offering an employee a settlement with the only other option being a significant demotion or handing in their notice.

Similarly unfair if a department wants to downsize due a merger, buy out or make-over, wants to avoid starting into the legal complication of redundancies but then specifically picking individuals and trying to get rid of them aggressively without the protection of the legal process. The legal process is there to protect you, but may be more expensive and time consuming for employers.

<soapboxing>
I would like to add that while individual cases often go amicably, the employment rights we do have are very valuable. Allowing open malpractice against such rights can lead to a dilution of those rights in some cases the outright loss of them. Similar things are happening with working longer hours, working through lunch breaks, having employers retract holiday authorisation or making it difficult for people to plan for holidays and work-life-balance. This is destabilising the labour market in the employers favour and opening people to being exploited while at the same time devaluing those who stand up for themselves.

Remember it's very simple. Capitalism. You sell your time, effort, skills, knowledge and experience to the company. If they start asking for more of those things than the job and salary specified they need to pay you more money. You can categorically guarantee that your company will not go one step further for you without making money doing it. Do not accept "Just be glad to have a job" or you devalue all of us.