Refused voluntary severance

[Stylus_XL]

I currently work as a web editor employed in a department that is undergoing consultations pertaining to a potential restructuring that could take effect in a month's time. I've been in this role for four years. They've sold this restructuring as only a "proposal"; one that will be subject to our input as they try to refine a new system that everyone can "agree" to. So far the process hasn't resembled anything close to democracy (as one would expect) so when it inevitably goes ahead my job will be disestablished within about 6 months or so.

 

There are three web related roles in the new structure but I have issues with them and consequently made the decision to ask for voluntary severance. One of the roles would place me on a lower pay grade. The other two roles are the same pay grade but lean towards more general administrative duties that would conflate my more technical present role with communications, marketing and strategy responsibilities that I really don't care for. I don't want my career to veer off in this direction and I don't have the skills or experience to complete some of the additional duties highlighted within the new job descriptions.

 

My request for a voluntary severance offer was refused on the basis that this was "not in [their] interests". This makes me worry about what will happen next.

 

My suspicion is that I will be judged to be "suitable" for one of the two aforementioned roles and thus be deemed not to be legally redundant. Ultimately of course this would allow them to escape the golden handshake should I still choose to walk away, as they will probably try to argue that my refusal to accept the new post would be "unreasonable".

 

My question is am I likely to be able to escape this place with a pay-off under these circumstances or will I just have to resign? Section 141 of the Employment Rights Act is frighteningly vague about how "suitability" or "unreasonable refusal" are determined.

 

Apologies if I've been too vague about anything, I'm trying to detail the issue without being overly specific.

 

Thanks,

 

Stylus.

[Emmzzi]

usually it's on a percentage skills match, but there's no legal minimum figure; I usually go for "the job needs no more than 40% new skills".

 

the law is there to prevent people being dismissed, mainly, not to protect your interests the other way around, I am afraid.

[stevemLS]

As well as skills match, such matters as location and salary also enter into whether a role is suitable within the meaning of the law.

 

However, your employer is under no obligation to offer voluntary severance to an individual even if it offers a voluntary redundancy scheme nor is their any obligation, unless your contract says otherwise, to offer any more than the statutory redundancy payment.

[Stylus_XL]

usually it's on a percentage skills match, but there's no legal minimum figure; I usually go for "the job needs no more than 40% new skills".

 

the law is there to prevent people being dismissed, mainly, not to protect your interests the other way around, I am afraid.

 

Thanks for your response, that's what I feared. I've evaluated the new job descriptions and I'd argue the 'new skills' percentage is at around 50%.

[Stylus_XL]

As well as skills match, such matters as location and salary also enter into whether a role is suitable within the meaning of the law.

 

However, your employer is under no obligation to offer voluntary severance to an individual even if it offers a voluntary redundancy scheme nor is their any obligation, unless your contract says otherwise, to offer any more than the statutory redundancy payment.

 

They gave me a quote for voluntary severance (which they stressed was just a quote and not an offer) and it was basically the same as what I would get if I was paid statutory redundancy along with my notice in lieu (six months).

[Emmzzi]

Thanks for your response, that's what I feared. I've evaluated the new job descriptions and I'd argue the 'new skills' percentage is at around 50%.

 

the only way you;re going to know for sure is if a judge decides; which is a painful and drawn out process.

 

How does your employer feel about "trial periods" in new roles? So you can be bad at it for a while

[Stylus_XL]

the only way you;re going to know for sure is if a judge decides; which is a painful and drawn out process.

 

How does your employer feel about "trial periods" in new roles? So you can be bad at it for a while

 

LOL I actually do think they'd be receptive to that and I've considered it! What I'd then be concerned about is me under-performing throughout the trial, them deeming my performance to be okay during that period and then dismissing me later once the trial was over.

[becky2585]

LOL I actually do think they'd be receptive to that and I've considered it! What I'd then be concerned about is me under-performing throughout the trial, them deeming my performance to be okay during that period and then dismissing me later once the trial was over.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that would be exactly what would happen. Playing games with an employer doesn't usually end well

[Emmzzi]

What if you actually enjoyed the new job? Just wondering....

[ericsbrother]

hhow many people chasing how many posts?