Restructure, didn't get job. offered demotion

[PJ1]

Hi, I'm a newbie to this forum and wondered if anyone could offer me advice on a huge problem I have at work right now?

Recently my employers decided to restructure the team where I have worked for 8 years, (prev TUPED with 20 years service) We were told they will reduce 8 jobs to 6, and have introduced 2 new lower graded jobs- 8 in total. There are 8 people workng in the team. They insisted we express an interest in the posts we wanted, then had numerical and verbal reasoning assessments and interviews.

I have found out now that I didn't get the job I have been doing for 8 years, and have been offered demotion off the team to a call centre position- pay protected for 3 years, (losing £7k pa after that).I have also been told that it is essential to the business to end part time hours- (I do 25hrs a week) and must take either 17.5 hours or 35 hours. It is in my contract that they could change my hours, but is it essential or just more convenienent for them, as 16 people work in the call centre?

 

5 out of the 8 people have been offered demotion, and they will be advertising the 3 vacant jobs very soon.

Can anyone advise is this is legal? I have never been given any warnings etc that my work was below par, and never been off sick in 4 years. The team as a whole were failing, but with 8 new managers in last 2 years and lact of suitable IT (recently upgraded) it has been very hard to meet targets. is it not resonable to expect them to go down the capability route instead of restructure? The job has not changed.

I'm sorry to go on so long, but I suppose I need advice please on whether I should accept the demotion? Can they get out of thieir notice period of 12 weeks on my contract if I decide not to take the new job offered?, but as they have offered me a lower paid job and intend to change my hours to 17.5 means I lose £350pcm.

my union rep says they did everything above board.

[cynic09]

Apparently they are making you redundant with 28 years service? the demotion being an attempt to get round paying you reduncancy?????

[honeybee13]

Hi there. Have you spoken to the acas helpline about this? I would have thought this was right up their street. Hopefully they will be back tomorrow?

[PJ1]

Hi, thanks for replies. I have spoken to ACAS who advised to appeal against their decision, and to put in a grievance to my employers. Problem is that, employers say there is no right to appeal, and no redundancy as the job is still there, as per their solicitors.

We have a shut down over Xmas, so I will hopefully get feedback on why I didn't get my job, and put in a grievance next week. Does anyone know if I need Union backing if I put in a grievance? or can I do it independantly of the Union?

 

The date for the new structure is 4.1.10. There is pressure on to sign the new contracts on this date, the others have already signed! I've been told to report to HR first thing on 4.1.10 to sign new contract.

[monkeychicken]

I would involve the Union asap!

[cynic09]

Sign nothing, since you don't want to accept it.

Your company may not want you appealing, doesnt mean it wont be unfair dismissal, no appeal, straight to the employment tribunal then?

If there has been no redundancy then you continue to work the same contracted hours at the same rate? If so they are right, anything else is a variation of contract which you can either accept or not. If not then they can either terminate your contract or let you continue under present conditions.

No you do not need to consult a union to raise a grievance, it's usually better to do so since the union covers any legal costs that may incur later

[cynic09]

Redundancy is often confused as being some kind of ok way to end an employment contract. It isn't.......it's a potentially fair reason for dismissal. It is still a dismissal. As such it can be challenged in exactly the same manner as any other dismissal. From your OP it seems to me they are unwilling to pay you your 28 weeks pay, 42 if your over 40 and are trying to force you to accept a vountary cut in hours instead.

Sign nothing and raise a formal grivance in writing. If poss get them to put the no appeal statement in writing too

[honeybee13]

I agree with cynic09 here. My understanding is that the job/position is made redundant, not the person.

 

It doesn't sound to me as if that's what they're doing. Am I right, guys?

[cynic09]

Spot on Honey. They would argue the 25 hour job was no longer viable hence the reason for offering alternatives.

The alternatives may not suit the individual who's contract is being terminated. Entirely the choice of the individual, no justification required.

Offering reduced terms and conditions does NOT constitute an offer of alternative position

Then statutory redundancy pay kicks in...........frequently employers try to avoid paying people with 28 years service Redundancy pay, by fair means or foul

A lot of money with zero return

[PJ1]

Hi all, I been in work and as I am refusing the alternative demoted job, I have been offered a compromise agreement, - 3 months gross wage in lieu of notice , plus good reference.

Union say to take it or accept the new demoted job-pay protected for 3 years, but on less hours. Still not convinced this is the right thing to do thou. Feedback session from panel, say 'performance is not being brought into question, they are looking for a 'wow' factor'! Written feed back consisted of points (14) and assessment test results. I got 94% numerical assessment test, whilst the 2 people who got the jobs got 5% and 2% on numerical tests this info was leaked to us.- we work all day on accounts!, Union say can't appeal against an interview, and we don't object to the restructure, so can't take it further, so no Grievance has been done.

 

Anyway, just looking at new T&Cs of new job, and they have changed the emploers Notice period from - 1 week for every year up to max of 12, to 4 weeks notice.

Can anyone advise pls if this is legal? I've found references that states if there is no Contract what the minimum notice should be, but in this case there is a (new) Contract stating only 4 weeks notice is required by the employer.

I was considering taking the demotion as this is causing me stress, but if this new contract is legally binding, I suspect they may do something similar in the future in the new job, and just give 4 weeks notice, instead of current 12 weeks.

Under pressure now to make a decision on Monday regarding the compromise agreement. Any advice please?

Thanks

[cynic09]

3 months wages? 13 weeks as opposed to paying your minimum 42 weeks redundancy pay and your union chap thinks its a good deal???????????

They call that a compromise, others might use less complimentary terms.

If your boss asked you to write him a cheque for 29 weeks pay in return for a letter saying your a nice person, would you do it?

What exactly do they mean by pay protected for three years? If you are getting the same gross for less hours then that is potentially better than this so called compromise

Edited January 9, 2010 by cynic09

[elpulpo]

3 months wages? 13 weeks as opposed to paying your minimum 42 weeks redundancy pay and your union chap thinks its a good deal???????????

They call that a compromise, others might use less complimentary terms.

If your boss asked you to write him a cheque for 29 weeks pay in return for a letter saying your a nice person, would you do it?

That's what I was thinking.

[PJ1]

There're saying it is not a redundancy situation, as the job is still there, (even though the number of jobs reduced from 8 to 6), I suspect they are right here. They're argument is that I wasn't appointed. We are in a 'business critical' area of the business, which as a whole team has not performed over last 2 years- not least due to several new managers and previous useless IT system.

Protected pay for 3 years is for current hours, i.e 25, but can only opt for 17.5 or 35. But if I opt for full time (35hrs) protected pay is only up to 25hours, then they pay me the usual(going) rate for the increase to 35 hours per week, -10 hours. I can't take 35 hours due to childcare, esp on holidays, so only option is 17.5pw, which is less money again.

Still don't know whether to put in a grievance against selection criteria, my 14 points were calculated as 2 each for skills + qualifications, 2 for performance, and 5 each for no discilplinary, and 5 for attendance. Other person who got 1 of the jobs also got 14 points, same as me! -she has always worked full time.

Thanks for support and advice, PJ

[cynic09]

There're saying it is not a redundancy situation, as the job is still there, (even though the number of jobs reduced from 8 to 6), I suspect they are right here. They're argument is that I wasn't appointed. We are in a 'business critical' area of the business, which as a whole team has not performed over last 2 years- not least due to several new managers and previous useless IT system.

Protected pay for 3 years is for current hours, i.e 25, but can only opt for 17.5 or 35. But if I opt for full time (35hrs) protected pay is only up to 25hours, then they pay me the usual(going) rate for the increase to 35 hours per week, -10 hours. I can't take 35 hours due to childcare, esp on holidays, so only option is 17.5pw, which is less money again.

Still don't know whether to put in a grievance against selection criteria, my 14 points were calculated as 2 each for skills + qualifications, 2 for performance, and 5 each for no discilplinary, and 5 for attendance. Other person who got 1 of the jobs also got 14 points, same as me! -she has always worked full time.

Thanks for support and advice, PJ

The can say that if they like, unfortunately once you are offered a contract differing substantially from your existing one, which you refuse, they are then left with the choice of letting you continue on your existing contract or dismissal. Dismissal in such circumstances is redundancy, i.e. your job no longer exists. Trying to avoid paying the legally required amount by BS in my opinion

[cynic09]

Ok the guarenteed pay for three years is a difference of 7.5 hours per week, which equates to 46 weeks pay over the three years, how can they possibly maintain giving you 13 weeks pay for no hours is a compromise?

Your contract indicates 12 notice is required in any case, so they propose to give you a further week. As opposed to the redundancy pay and notice they are compelled by law to pay you.

That reads to me like instead of whatever your statutory redundancy pay works out at,(depends on age) somewhere between 28 and 42 weeks pay we will give you ONE weeks pay and a nice letter.

Good deal for them! ask them to chuck in a balloon too

Check here http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Redundancy/DG_174330

Edited January 10, 2010 by cynic09