Proposed redundancy

[miavega]

I currently work for a huge multinational corporation and am based in one of their london offices in a level 2 management position and have been employed since Jan 2nd 2009.

 

Last week myself and the other managers at my level in my department were called in and told we were in a redundancy pool and that we would all have two weeks consultation follwed by interviews where we would have to re-apply for our positions and that the five would reduce to four.

 

My queries are -

1) The consultation period is supposed to be where me and my colleagues are able to suggest alternative re-structures etc. However the only viable alternative any of us have come up with is a reduction in level 3 managers (our bosses) as in the new structure four level 2's will report into 3 level 3's which is top heavy. The level 3 brigade are however the people who will be conducting our interviews and are who will make the final decision on who gets the remaining position. therefore me and my peers all feel we are not able to make this suggestion as it will black mark us in the process.

Is this behaviour any grounds for legal appeal?

 

2) Today it has been announced that a level 2 manager is moving from the marketing department into my area in a newly created role. None of us have been invited to apply for this role and we are all suspicious that this role has just been created to fit this man as he would otherwise be up for redundancy in his own department. My belief was that if new positions are created they have to be advertised and we have to be able to apply for them? Again is this the case? And do I have any grounds for legal action if I am unlucky enough to be the position which is made redundant?

 

3) They are steadfastly refusing to tell me how many employees are in danger of redundancy and so I have no way of assessing if they are acting properly with thier legal obligations re consultation periods - again I can't create about this as it will influence the interview process negatively. Is there anything I can do?

 

4) They have written to us all this afternoon saying if we want it sorted by christmas we have to waive our consultation rights which I am unhappy doing.

 

My feeling is I should wait to see if its me who has to go and if I do then I should persue any legal action? However I am not an expert in this field and I don't really know if I have any grounds for action?

 

Any advice gratefully received.......

[teaboy2]

This should help, I would go into more detail but i dont have time right now sdo i kind of just breezing through threads that i havent yet read. Hopefully someone will come along today and give you more detailed advice.

 

Taken from the employment act 1996 c.18

105 Redundancy

 

(1) An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if—

(a) the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee was redundant,

(b) it is shown that the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in the same undertaking who held positions similar to that held by the employee and who have not been dismissed by the employer, and

© it is shown that any of subsections (2) to (7) applies.

(2) This subsection applies if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which the employee was selected for dismissal was that specified in any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1) of section 99 (read with subsection (2) of that section) or subsection (3) of that section (and any requirements of the paragraph, or subsection, not relating to the reason are satisfied).

(3) This subsection applies if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which the employee was selected for dismissal was one of those specified in subsection (1) of section 100 (read with subsections (2) and (3) of that section).

(4) This subsection applies if either—

(a) the employee was a protected shop worker or an opted-out shop worker, or a protected betting worker or an opted-out betting worker, and the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which the employee was selected for dismissal was that specified in subsection (1) of section 101 (read with subsection (2) of that section), or

(b) the employee was a shop worker or a betting worker and the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which the employee was selected for dismissal was that specified in subsection (3) of that section.

(5) This subsection applies if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which the employee was selected for dismissal was that specified in section 102(1).

(6) This subsection applies if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which the employee was selected for dismissal was that specified in section 103.

(7) This subsection applies if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which the employee was selected for dismissal was one of those specified in subsection (1) of section 104 (read with subsections (2) and (3) of that section).

(8) For the purposes of section 36(2)(b) or 41(1)(b), the appropriate date in relation to this section is the effective date of termination.

(9) In this Part “redundancy case” means a case where paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section are satisfied.