Redundancies

[diamondgirl]

Can a company do a points system ie sickness, lateness and also take into account previous employment ie your c.v. before you started work with the company to make people redundant. Also is it right that if they state there will be three consultations and you will be informed on the third one if you are to stay or go but also give people the stay or go on a second consultation?

[postggj]

well no to answer your question

 

they may try but it can be classed as discriminatory in the circumstances posted above

 

i cannot understand three consultation periods

 

if rundendancies are being proposed through a slim down or tupe, the employer does a consultancy period of say 28 days. or 90 days depending on the amount of staff

 

people are asked such things as voluntary redundency etc

 

then it can go to

 

last in first out for example

 

the whole process on what you state is wrong

 

do you have a union and what sector of employment do you work in

Edited October 11, 2011 by postggj

[diamondgirl]

No no union but its the clerical sector - cant say too much about the company or full process as I know they read posts on here

and dont want to give too much away regarding what my intentions are. I always thought it last come 1st to go but they say they have consulted employment law but we know companies can say anything if they think they can get away with it.

[postggj]

ask what section of the employment rights act they are relying on, let alone th equalities act also

 

also

 

give acas a ring for free addvice

 

how many people in the work force does this equate to

 

If your employer bases your redundancy selection on an unfair reason your redundancy will automatically be unfair and you may be able to make a claim to an Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal.

[CONCILLIATOR]

If a company uses a points system to select employees for redundancy they should ensure that the affected employees are aware of and satisfied with the system being used. It also has to ensure that the criteria used are objective, fair and consistent.

 

 

 

Examples of such criteria:

• attendance record (ensure this is fully accurate and that reasons for and extent of absence are known)
  
• disciplinary record (ensure this is fully accurate)
  
• skills or experience
  
• standard of work performance
  
• aptitude for work
  

Relevant qualifications, skills and experience, perhaps from previous employment, as might be shown on CVs, may be used, but not in isolation.

 

 

If there is an agreed consultation procedure it should be adhered to. The question to consider if the consultation period is reduced is whether it would make any difference to the result. Another question is whether the process is designed to reduce the redundancy pool as it progresses.

[postggj]

Please supply a link as to where that statement above came from please

 

many thanks

[Sidewinder]

Not entirely sure where some of the assertions given above come from relating to consultation as there are few hard and fast 'rules' other than those relating to the collective process where more than 20 employees are likely to be made redundant.

 

All that the employer needs to demonstrate is that a. The redundancy is genuine, and b. That a fair selection process has been followed. Assuming Point 'a' is a given, then let's look at point 'b'. For individual consultations (ie those not involving more than 20 employees), a consultation can be as long or as short as it needs to be - there is no minimum period so long as this in itself does not make the process 'unfair'. There is also nothing which sets a maximum or minimum number of consultation meetings - the point about a consultation period is that it must explore all possible alternatives to redundancy, and a 'good' procedure will involve a preliminary meeting to inform that the employee is considered 'at risk', and then subsequent meetings to permit the employee every opportunity to ask whatever questions are needed to understand the situation, and to discuss any alternatives which might exist (job sharing, reduced hours, alternative vacancies etc). Where the employer does not have responses available to the issues raised, these should be relayed at a further meeting. Only once the 'consultation process' has concluded can the employee be formally advised that there is no alternative but to make the position redundant and formal notice issued of dismissal. If the employer originally stated that there would be three consultation meetings but instead made the decision on the second one, this would seem to be POTENTIALLY a little unfair, particularly where the employees concerned had had insufficient opportunity to explore alternatives to dismissal.

 

That is the 'consultation', and similarly, the 'selection' must be carried out in an equally fair and equitable manner. Those at risk need to be pooled, so where a fixed number of redundancies are required, those doing the same, or substantially the same' job must all be considered at risk of redundancy and (after any voluntary redundancies where applicable) are taken into account and scoring system used to narrow the field. The scoring system must be equally applied and should not be designed to specifically rule any one individual in or out. At this point any number of criteria can be used, but most commonly involve absence and disciplinary records, qualifications, length of service, skills or aptitude. If the employer could demonstrate that after normal scoring did not sufficiently narrow the pool, then it is POSSIBLE that factors disclosed on a CV or information from a previous employment could be used as a deciding factor, but this would be irregular, and particularly in the case of absence or sickness information COULD lead to problems in certain circumstances where any absence might be related to a condition that could be construed as a disability, but the problem there is in making the links sufficiently clear to make a case for Unfair Dismissal. An employee is entitled to know what the scoring factors are which determine the decision to dismiss, but may not know of the scores of others. Employees do not have to 'agree' to a particular scoring method, but are entitled to object if it is believed that the scoring used is flawed or biased - an employer should therefore make sure that the process is transparent and not open to such criticism.

 

Concilliator's post is pretty near the mark IMO

[postggj]

thanks sidewinder

 

before an employer goes down the route sugested above all avenues must be adressed

 

does an at risk employee wish to take voluntary redundency for example

 

its only at the end of the line and staff remain that the options sugested can be taken into account

 

or am i barking up the wrong tree

 

the point i am makng is that any redundency needs to be addressed fairly and unoficial to begin with.

in other words

 

mutual cooperation from the employee and employer to begin with

 

not go with the recomendations in post 5 from the begining as i would class that as discriminatory

[Sidewinder]

I don't see anything especially discriminatory in Post 5, although would question the last line of the post as the redundancy pool cannot be 'reduced' during the process, only at the conclusion, which would then confirm that some of the 'at risk' employees were no longer 'at risk', however the remainder would be dismissed.

 

You are absolutely correct though that fairness and transparency are absolutely crucial. An job cannot be made redundant BEFORE consultation starts (save perhaps in cases of business closure), the consultation MUST be meaningful in it's key objective of trying to establish whether redundancy is the ONLY option, the employee should be made aware of the situation and given time to absorb the information given, and must be allowed every opportunity to ask questions, the selection process should be transparent and the conclusions given in writing. It is all about making the process as comprehensive as possible and crossing 't's' and dotting 'i's'. This provides reassurance for the employee (they may still be unhappy at the decision if they do get dismissed but should understand that the treatment was 'fair') and protection for the employer in terms of being able to improve that all reasonable steps were taken to act fairly and with consideration for the employees concerned.

 

The employer should state at the time that staff are put 'at risk' that he is willing to consider requests for voluntary redundancy, but even though a request may be made, he is entitled to refuse the request if it can e justified (cost of making particular people redundant IS an acceptable reason and is also a valid scoring criteria!), and would still have to follow fair procedures anyway even if the request is accepted.VR is part of the consultation process as it may affect the risk status of other employees, but yes, if there is still a need to make redundancies AFTER any VR issues are considered, then all other factors come into play.

 

There is a reasonably good summary here http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_money/employment/redundancy_an_introduction/redundancy___procedures_your_employer_must_follow.htm#discrimination_and_choosing_people_for_redundancy or from a Solicitor's perspective here http://www.slpsolicitors.co.uk/pdf/Redundancy%20procedure.pdf and in the latter example (from SLP Solicitors - just picked at random) this would seem to be a fairly considerate 'model' for a redundancy procedure in terms of the amount of consideration that an employer should give to 'getting it right'.