Hello, my name is***** am a qualified lawyer and I will be assisting you with your question today.
What reason has been provided for having to apply for the other 2 positions?
OK thank you, ***** ***** it with me. I am in court today so will prepare my advice during the day and get back to you at the earliest opportunity. There is no need to wait here as you will receive an email when I have responded. Thank you.
Many thanks for your patience. This appears to be a potential redundancy situation. 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.
So in effect they are reducing the need for employees to do the job you are currently doing and are creating new jobs to cover these tasks. It is difficult to challenge this because the employer is free to reorganise its operation as it sees fit. In this case your job is being split into three distinct areas and your employer should offer you these jobs as a suitable alternative employment. When the law says they should offer you these jobs that does not guarantee you will be placed into them and you could be asked to apply and go through a competitive recruitment process.
So from a legal point of view, what they are doing is not ideal for you but can be justified if necessary, so a constructive dismissal claim looks like a difficult thing to pursue in the circumstances. You may be better off trying to negotiate with them and there are ways you can try and do that which I can cover if needed.
This is your basic legal position. I have more detailed advice for you in terms of the negotiating options you have in this case, which I wish to discuss so please take a second to leave a positive rating for the service so far (by selecting 3, 4 or 5 stars) and I can continue with that and answer any further questions you may have. Don’t worry, there is no extra cost and leaving a rating will not close the question and we can continue this discussion. Thank you
The work does not have to completely disappear for there to be a redundancy. They should offer you all suitable positions, but if some will have others competing for them then you can be asked to go through a competitive process. They could offer you one without a competitive process if no one else is going for it. If you are having to go through a competitive process then your way of challenging this would be if you were not selected fairly.
Hope this clarifies?
Hello, I see you have read my response to your query. If this has answered your question please take a second to leave a positive rating by selecting 3, 4 or 5 stars from the top of the page. I spend a lot of time and effort answering individual queries and I am not credited for my time until you leave your rating. If you still need further help please get back to me on here and I will assist as best as I can. Many thanks.
No work needs to disappear at all – the same amount of work could remain but just fewer employees needed to do it and that would still amount to a redundancy. So they could dismantle a job and spread it out amongst others, so requiring ne less employee to do that particular job and that can still be legal. As mentioned I can discuss options on taking this further if needed
you are being offered all three parts - remember that being offered does not mean just handing it to you on a plate, it an require you to partake in a competitive selection process
I can continue assisting and explaining you situation but please remember to leave your rating otherwise I cannot continue thank you
I have seen many engineered redundancies which are simply impossible to challenge. The employer can do what they have done here - split the job in three and offer you the opportunity to apply for all three new jobs - some may not have competition so you can take them straight away, others may have other candidates and you may have to compete against them. Unless you can show that the selection process was clearly unfair and someone was chosen in preference to you without any reals reasons then it can be challenged, but otherwise it can be difficult
Hello, do you need any further assistance or are you happy with the above response? Look forward to hearing from you.
You could try and approach this under stress rules - a good starting point is to look at The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and related statutory instruments, which impose a general duty on employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees. This includes a duty to undertake risk assessments and manage activities to reduce the incidence of stress at work. In addition, under common law an employer owes a duty of care towards its employees, the breach of which can amount to negligence.
You can approach the employer on a 'without prejudice' basis (i.e. off the record) to try and discuss the possibility of leaving under a settlement agreement instead of being made redundant and possibly claiming against them. Under a settlement agreement, the employee gets compensated for leaving the company and in return promises not to make any claims against the employer in the future. It is essentially a clean break, although the employer does not have to agree to it so it will be subject to negotiation. In any event, there is nothing to lose by raising this possibility with them because you cannot be treated detrimentally for suggesting it and it would not be used against you.