Redundancy while on a fit note

[DaB0B]

Evening all,

 

I was in a bad motorcycle acccident in April 2015, this kept my off my work, an oil Rig Worker offshore in Scotland/Aberdeen, due to mulitple broken bones etc. Come July my GP suggested i could return to work on an ammended duties note, basically so i could work in my employers yard doing 'light duties' untill i was fit to return offshore. My healing didnt go to plan, and after many visits to hospital and x-rays, the consultant doctor opted i would need more surgery. This lead to me being sign off unfit to work again in September. I had surgery in November, and remained absent from work until March 2016.

 

During this time, in January 2016, my employer decided to start redundancies, paying off 30 guys. I was put at risk, even though i was still signed off, the process went into full swing, but near end of the period, i was informed un-offically that i was exempt to the redundancies process due to my ill health.

 

Near the end of Febuary, literaly a few days after finding out my job was safe on the 26th of Feb, I was visiting my GP to get a new sick note. Once again my GP suggests returning to work on the 'ammended duties' Fit note starting March the 1st 2016!

 

I agreed to this, as i would have lots of computer based competancy and safety courses that would of expired. Then as i am preparing for my return to work, spoke to my line manager and informed i would return Monday 29th Feb, my employer announces more redundancies.

 

So once again i get the at risk letter. 43 people in total to go, 5 from my department of 38 people. So i am at work for the few weeks into March, on this 'ammended duties' Fit note from my GP, and i am informed that i am one of the 5 to be made redundant.

 

The selection criteria my employer used is based partly on skills and reporting, also compliance to there safety and competancy computer based training certificates. The periods they looked at these is the whole of 2015 and Jan, Feb of 2016.

 

So they cant possibly score me fairly on this selection criteria as i have not perfomed my usual job for a year due to ill health. I have not yet seen how they scored me, but my manager told me that they have tryed to score me fairly based on some averages. No idea yet what averages, but to me it seems like they have just fabricated a score for myself.

 

Bearing in mind i am still not fit to return to my usualy job, i have follow up appointments in April to see my health, but i am in high spirits this would be a good visit.

 

So am i being treated unfairly?

 

Is my employer allowed to use this skills/reporting/compentancy matrix to get rid of me?

 

Also not once during my return in July 2015, or March 2016 on the ammended duties note, did my employer send me to any occupational health assements, or review my working enviroment to make sure it was suitible.

 

What would you do in my situation? What do i do about this?

 

Any help, advice or similar stories would be greatly appriecated.

 

Thanks

 

Bob

[DaB0B]

I will also add I find it hard to understand that while i was signed off unfit for work, my employers seen me as untouchable in the 1st redundancy process. Then i return to work on an ammended duties note from my GP for 2 weeks, and i am fair game for redundancy in my employers eyes.

 

This just doesnt make sense to me.

 

I am still unfit for my normal duites.

[martin2006]

Hi Bob, not my area but one of the team will be along to advise soon.

[ericsbrother]

in the first instance they are not allowed to treat you any differently than the others in the same job group or they can get done for disability discrimination. The second time around they have assessed you for suitability to carry on in your old role and have decided to offer you a new position more suited to your current attributes. This position has now been considered under the company rationalisation procedure and is now redundant. It is the job that is going and along with it, the person. It was never about you as an individual. What you did a year ago is of no real relevance to the current reduction in numbers as they arent assessing the same job.

If you were the only one in your current job role getting the chop it would smell a bit fishy but they are following normal procedures. You arent out the door yet, just on notice that change is happening. If you have flown through the retraining/competency markers then I would think that you will perform well at interview should they use them as part of the selection procedure. Also, if you are likely to recover enough to do your old job they may well think that they have a two jobs for the price of one person. You can sell that flexibility to them as well as the obvious willingness to retrain.

[DaB0B]

in the first instance they are not allowed to treat you any differently than the others in the same job group or they can get done for disability discrimination. The second time around they have assessed you for suitability to carry on in your old role and have decided to offer you a new position more suited to your current attributes. This position has now been considered under the company rationalisation procedure and is now redundant. It is the job that is going and along with it, the person. It was never about you as an individual. What you did a year ago is of no real relevance to the current reduction in numbers as they arent assessing the same job.

If you were the only one in your current job role getting the chop it would smell a bit fishy but they are following normal procedures. You arent out the door yet, just on notice that change is happening. If you have flown through the retraining/competency markers then I would think that you will perform well at interview should they use them as part of the selection procedure. Also, if you are likely to recover enough to do your old job they may well think that they have a two jobs for the price of one person. You can sell that flexibility to them as well as the obvious willingness to retrain.

 

My job role has not changed. I still have the same job title/contract as before. Just i am not fit to do my old job as of yet. My employer is under no obligation to provide me with anything to do while under the ammended duties note.

 

The second time round, no assesment of my health has ever been done by my employer. I have not seen a medic or nurse once through my company. So there is no assesment to see if i will be fit to perform my role, just the information provided by myself from my consultant.

 

It is my old, original role that is being made redundant, in the sense that the company does not require 38 of us to do that job anymore, they have decided 33 is enough.

 

It is about me as an individual when it comes down to the scoring matrix. I am still not fit to do my position, noting has changed from the 1st round of payoffs, appart from i returned to catch up on competancy and training, sitting at a computer basically.

 

The criteria matrix they have used to score the 38 employees is based on performance and compliance for 2015, 2016, and small part of skills used in the 2015 period. During this period i have been phyiscally signed off, not at work for 7 months, plus another 4 months signed on an ammended duties note because i am unfit to perform my normal role. So how can i be scored fairly on the matrix is my question?

 

I have been selected as one of the 5 to be made redundant out of a pool of 38 guys. If i had stayed off at home i would not of been selected. So how does being unfit to do my job at home make me legally safer than being unfit to do my job at work but doing training and compentancy?

[becky2585]

There's actually no legal reason why you couldn't have been included in the first redundancy pool. Being signed off sick doesn't mean you can't be included in any redundancy consultation process.

 

It sounds to me that your employer has done skewed logic, in that perhaps they thought they were making reasonable adjustments for your disability by exempting you from the first process. Perhaps now you're back on light duties they do view you as "fair game"?

 

Part of the purpose of the consultation is to notify your employer of the unfairness of the criteria. Maybe you can suggest they take previous performance records when you were at 100% health, or you will almost certainly be made unfairly redundant as there is no criteria to measure you against (because of your disability related absence). If you are ultimately selected because of circumstances surrounding your disability then they could be on a sticky wicket.

[DaB0B]

I think they excluded me from the 1st round because they couldnt fairly score me on a performance criteria when i wasnt there to perform. It would be completely unfair, i assume this is the legal side that stopped them from doing so.

 

What confuses me is i was only back for a couple of weeks, and i seen to be fair game now.

 

I have my 1st private consultation meeting tomorrow, i will get to see how they have scored me, and i will raise my concerns, and who knows, i might even talk them into keeping my job.

 

But yes, the main question is, why didnt the score me on the last round, and what has changed this time with my return?

[ericsbrother]

I disagree, they can still go ahead with their processes if you are off ill as you have given no indication that there is a permanency to your condition .

Why did they drop you form the round last time? they were hedging their bets and so gave you the benefit of the doubt regarding your long term prospects. Redundancy is not about you, it is about the post. Your belief that if you stayed at home you wouldnt have been chosen is a flawed conclusion if there is no permanency to your current disability and they may well have selected you for release on capability grounds anyway. You appear to be want to be treated fairly but then again differently to your colleagues so you have to decide what strategy to use- get a doctor to give a long term prognosis and seek a change in duties comensurate to a disability or accept that the employer has followed the right process but the use of the wrong criteria to make their decisions. you wont get any of your colleagues helping you out on this unless there is some aspect the other 4 for the chop have in common that isnt directly related to the chosen scheme such as union membership, race etc.

[DaB0B]

Had my private consultation today. I raised the question of why was i not included in the 1st redundancy process? The Answer i received was because I would of been at a disadvantage due to my absence.

 

So i asked what is different this time, i return to work 3 days after you announced the 2nd round of redundancies, on an amended duties note from my GP, so you are under no obligation to accommodate me, but you invite me back to work, then send out my at risk letter 5 days after everyone else. What has changed in that short period is have been back, that I have lost that previous disadvantage, and now I am fair game?

 

She had no reply to this and moved on to the next topic, so I had to raise the question again, to which her reply was she will have to look into it.

 

I also asked if had stayed at home this last few weeks, i wouldn't be in this situation would i? Which she agreed. This will be why i reciveved my at risk letter later than everyone else, because someone had initially excluded me from the process.

 

I think i will carry on at this angle in the hope of keeping my job.

 

Please share your opinions on this, i am very interested to hear others thoughts on this.

 

Thanks

[becky2585]

I think you've taken the right approach.

 

Presumably, they would have deemed a dismissal the first time around to have been unfair, so what has changed to make a potential dismissal this time around fair?

[DaB0B]

I think you've taken the right approach.

 

Presumably, they would have deemed a dismissal the first time around to have been unfair, so what has changed to make a potential dismissal this time around fair?

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

I have this same topic open on another forum, and i am getting tired of the ridiculous replys. This reply from you is probably the clearest, simplest reply i have read yet. No reading between the lines, or putting words in my mouth. Short and straight to the point.

 

You are correct, i have written down almost word for word as you have put it, and i will ask this question. I suspect they will not have an answer for it.

 

Nothing has changed from the 1st redundancy period in January apart from i sat at a computer for 12 days. Still unfit to do my job, under an ammended duties note from my GP. They were under no obligation to accomadate me at work. This disadvantage she described it as still stands, as i do not have a time machine. I can not go back to 2015 and change anything.

 

I will post the reply i recieve when possible. I have another meeting this Thursday coming.