How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Ben Jones Your Own Question
Ben Jones
Ben Jones, UK Lawyer
Category: Employment Law
Satisfied Customers: 50202
Experience:  Qualified Employment Solicitor
Type Your Employment Law Question Here...
Ben Jones is online now

We have a restructure and likley redundancies. We have an

This answer was rated:

We have a restructure and likley redundancies.
We have an office in Glostershire and one in Exeter and need to move all to Exeter for Financial reasons.
There will be the same number of jobs but those in Glos are unlikely to want to move to Exeter.
My question is that those staff in Exeter already employed in those roles. Do theyneed to re apply for their job?. We will have to advertise as part of the process but can we automatically keep them in their roles or do they need to apply for them and re interview?
Hello, my name is ***** ***** it is my pleasure to assist you with your question today. Do they do the same roles in both offices and what are the reasons for redundancies and the closure?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.

Hi yes the roles are all the same. 6 administrators, 3 in glossy, 3in exeter. There is no change at all to the Job role we are just moving l positions to exeter hence there will be likely redundancies at vlos if we can't redeploy.

My question is do the staff at exeter have to reapply for their own jobs?

When a redundancy situation arises, there is a legal obligation on an employer to ensure that it applies a fair method of selection when deciding on who is to be made redundant. The general requirement is that a fair and objective method should be applied.
The first step is identifying the pool of employees from which the selection will be made. Often that could be a particular job, a department, even a whole office. The employer only has to show that its choice of pool was within the range of reasonable responses. This could often be linked to the needs of the business, for example a need to reduce a particular expense linked to a team, outsourcing certain work, etc.
The general rules state that when deciding on the choice of pool, the employer should start by considering two questions, which will help them identify which employees should be included:
• Which particular kind of work is disappearing?
• Which employees perform the particular kind of work which is disappearing?
Once the pool has been established the employer has to decide how to select those employees which are to be made redundant. There are various ways of doing this and the more commonly used methods are:
• Scoring matrix based on various criteria (e.g. disciplinary record, attendance record, length of service, performance, etc.)
• Asking employees to re-apply for their jobs, or for any newly created jobs, with the unsuccessful ones being made redundant
Where an employer carries out similar work at more than one site, it may be unfair for an employer to only include employees at one site within the pool, even if that site is closing completely. For example the case of Highland Fish Farmers v Thorburn – there the employer needed to make eight redundancies out of a workforce of 50 spread over a number of sites. It decided to close one site altogether at Torridon as it was making a loss. It dismissed the three Torridon employees, plus five others from other sites. Two of the dismissed Torridon employees had previously worked at the Aird site, a 40-minute journey away, and wanted to keep their jobs and go back to Aird. They argued that Aird and Torridon should have been considered as a single pool. The tribunal held that the employers had acted unfairly in treating Torridon in isolation. The tribunal commented that "any reasonable employer faced with two sites in geographical proximity and providing mutual support would not have focused on one single site as the pool for selection".
So this is relevant in your case in the event that the two sites were such that employees were regularly working across both or in close geographical proximity. I would say the proximity is not that close and it really depends on if they were treated as separate sites, or two sites that were working in conjunction with each other. If that was not the case then you do not have to require the Exeter employees to reapply for their jobs as it is not their site that is at risk.
I hope this has answered your query. Please take a second to leave a positive rating, or if you need me to clarify anything before you go - please get back to me and I will assist further as best as I can. Thank you
Ben Jones and other Employment Law Specialists are ready to help you