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: 49821
Experience:  Qualified Employment Solicitor - Please start your question with 'For Ben Jones'
Type Your Employment Law Question Here...
Ben Jones is online now

I have been employed by a large company past 8 years

This answer was rated:

I have been employed by a large company for the past 8 years as a logistics manager. There was a restructure 8 months ago and my role was changed to project manager within the same department another employee was brought in to do my previous role which I objected to verbally at the time without being advertised internally or externally. I have now received a letter asking to attend a meeting for risk of redundancy. Where do I stand ?
Hello, my name is***** am a solicitor on this site and it is my pleasure to assist you with your question today. Why could you not keep your old job if it still existed and someone was brought in to do it?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
The head of department changed and he had a resucture and brought another employee over with him where they split my job in two giving one area to one of my previous direct reports and the other area to the employee who joined our department
The main issue is that your rights in relation to the original changes that happened 8 months ago are now rather weak. If you did not agree with the way this was done and the changes that were introduced you would have been expected to formally challenge it and to advise the employer that you are working under protest, whilst you try and resolve this with them. This basically means that you would have formally refused to accept the changes and were being forced to work in the new position and were only doing so until you tried to resolve it with the employer. However, none of this happened unfortunately – you verbally raised the issues around the recruitment for the job but you accepted the changes and started working in the new position and have done so since. So as far as the law is concerned you have accepted the new job and it is now your contracted position. If this new position is now at risk of redundancy then the employer could certainly proceed with a redundancy exercise if they can show that there is a genuine redundancy situation. What happened in the past and how you ended up in this post is now irrelevant. So the key really is whether this is a redundancy and how it is dealt with. 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 closed2. Workplace closure – closure or relocation of one or more sites3. 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:· The same amount of work remains but fewer employees are needed to do it. This includes consolidating some of its jobs (e.g. spreading out certain jobs amongst existing employees).· There is less work of a particular kind and fewer employees are needed to do it (both the work and the headcount shrink)· There is less work of a particular kind, but the same number of employees are required overall. 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. I trust this has answered your query. I would be grateful if you could please take a second to leave a positive rating (selecting 3, 4 or 5 starts at the top of the page). If for any reason you are unhappy with my response or if you need me to clarify anything before you go - please get back to me on here and I will assist further as best as I can. Thank you
Ben Jones and other Employment Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
thank you