I will have worked for the company 6 years on 4th June, I transferred in form noath company so my full term of services is worked on TUPE basis equating to 8 years from 4 June 2006
This may be gearing up to a potential redundancy situation. The term 'redundancy' is used to describe a situation in which an employer decides to reduce the number of its employees. There are various reasons as to why redundancies may be required, such as economic pressure, changes in the nature of products/services offered, internal reorganisation, workplace relocation, etc. The reason for the proposed redundancies will rarely be challenged and the employer will simply have to justify that the actual reason satisfied the statutory definition of a redundancy, which can be found in The Employment Rights Act 1996:
1. Business closure – where the whole of the employer’s business is closed
2. Workplace closure – closure or relocation of one or more sites
3. Reduced requirement for employees to carry out work of a particular kind (this is where many employees get confused as they believe a job has to actually disappear for them to be made redundant).
The third reason above creates the most challenges. Examples of when there is a reduced requirement to do work of a particular kind are:
So as long as the employer can show that their situation fell within one of the accepted reasons for declaring a redundancy, the test will be satisfied and the focus then shifts on the remainder of the redundancy procedure. This would include what consultation took place, whether any suitable alternative employment was offered to those at risk and the general fairness of the redundancy procedure applied by the employer.
In terms of placing you at risk, you do not have to be consulted first before you are placed at risk – in fact the usual way of dealing with it is to place you at risk, then start a consultation process to discuss the situation and find alternatives or ways of avoiding the potential redundancy. So it could be that at the next meeting you re placed at risk and the employer proposes a consultation period to deal with this. As such you may want to wait until the meeting has taken place before you make a decision on how to proceed and whether a grievance is necessary.
Hi BenYou have not made any comment about the final part of my original question: final part of this long question is the team my boss has now surrounded himself are all between 25 & 40 and classed as up and coming stars in the company I am 58 and the oldest member of the current Senior management team. I am being stripped of all man management responsibilities as well. Although in the past I have always been commented on leading a team fairly & professionally. I do not feel I am being treated fairly and that I am in the process of being bumped from the company without any formal consultation until the 1:1 with my boss this week
Do you think there is any merit in mentioning the fact that the team within the Account seems to have been changed for a much younger set of what are being claimed as up and coming stars and that I am only being kept on at this stage until mobilisation is completed because he (my boss) needs my experience at this precise moment given my years of experience in certain elements of delivering Facilities services?
The age issue can either be a completely circumstantial issue, or a valid one where the employer is trying to replace the older workforce. However, you cannot just say 'these guys are younger than me so there is age discrimination'. It is entirely possible for this to just be a coincidence so a tribunal would want more evidence to suggest that discrimination was indeed happening here. However, there is nothing stopping you from challenging the employer head on about this and asking them for clarification on whether your age is a factor and how they can justify the younger replacements without it being discriminatory - their response could give you further clues and perhaps even evidence that you could potentially use if you were to take the matter to tribunal.