Employment - Having to re-apply for my job

[nannamoon1]

Just a quick question, I have today had a one to one Interview whereby I have been told that all office/managers/office staff titles no longer exist, they are redundant.

 

However when given the job description of the "supposedly" new role the description is exactly the same, in other words exactly the same job, but with a different title.

 

The reason for us having to re-apply for our jobs is we have been told that the office jobs have been restructured, but this appears not the case.

 

Also I was told that at my one 2 one meeting/Interview there would be someone from HR, someone from Security, and my Boss, however there was only my Boss is this the correct?

 

In my opinion the only reason for this change is to get rid of some office staff, as basically the have looked at the work load at each branch, and given an allocation of hours which the role should take, hence some office staff that say have been doing 30 hours, may see their role for exactly the same job but with an allocation say of 20 hours, so if they choose to re-apply, the role will now be for 20 hours instead of the 30 that they had been doing.

[Yoda]

Nanna,

 

Are you (or any of your colleages) in a union? If so, I would get them involved, why else do you pay your union fees? If not, then I'm not sure (I pay the union to worry for me).

 

If nothing else, my reply has bumped your post so someone else might me able to help.

 

Sounds dodgy to me though Nanna.

 

Good luck

 

Yoda

[Guest weegirl]

I know that you cannot make people redundant and then re-advertise the same position. Whether the job title has changed or not is irrevelent, it is the same job description, therefore the same job. The only thing I am unsure about here is the hours issue. I would have thought if the workload had lessened somewhat, the correct way would be to negotiate with the staff and cut hours, but maybe not. Hopefully some will clarify the hours issue soon.

[nannamoon1]

Nanna,

 

Are you (or any of your colleages) in a union? If so, I would get them involved, why else do you pay your union fees? If not, then I'm not sure (I pay the union to worry for me).

 

Sounds dodgy to me though Nanna.

 

Good luck

 

Yoda

 

We do not have the option of being in a union, unfortunately,

[nannamoon1]

anyone!!!!

[cal37]

Right, I can not answer without knowing all the details but just a couple of things to bear in mind.

First off, you say "We do not have the option of being in a union, unfortunately” Can I ask why not??? Everyone has a legal right to be a member of a trade union and no company can victimise you or not employ you because of your membership.

 

Second, at your one to one interview, were you offered the chance to have a witness there? this can be a work mate or a friend, wife anyone you like in fact

Lots of companies do this sort of thing, depending on the details it might be legal but then just as likely not legal.

 

My advice is to seek legal advice of an employment lawyer,giving him all details you can

[Monty2007]

Hi. I went through the same process about two years ago. I talked with a friend who is a barrister specializing in employment law and he confirmed that this was legal. As you mentioned, they have to essentially make your current position redundant and if they do not re-employ you within a new and acceptable role then they have to pay redundancy. You have the right to accept/decline or negotiate in respect of the "new role" which they are offering.

[nannamoon1]

Cal,

 

there are 3 of us in our office, I am the office manager, and I have 2 assistants, one of whom has been there 5 weeks and is full time, the other has been there just coming up on a year she works part time, I have been with the company a total of 5 years but had a break in contract (took redundancy) and have only been back 2 years in October, I work part time

 

We do not have a Union at work, and I do not belong to one:(

 

On Tuesday we were told that we had to listen to a conference call, after the call we were told our one 2 one meetings were on Wednesday at 10, 10.30 and 11, we received nothing in writing and were not offered a witness.

 

We were told that we will be told the outcome next Thurs or Frid.

 

This is happening throughout the company but only to office staff.

 

We have been told the allocation of hours for our size branch will be 60 hours with a head count of 2...now I work 24 hours over 3 days, my 1st assistant works 16 hours over 2 days and my other assistant works full time 40 hours and has only been with the company for 5 weeks.

 

So realistically between us we are doing 80 hours and we have been told that the branch has an allocation of 60 hours with a head count of 2, now my concern is that they knew this was going to happen more than 5 weeks ago why take on a full timer?

[cal37]

Hi,

I can see nothing that would be illegal to be honest, only thing is, they should have given the outcome in writing and offered you the chance of a witness there.

Also it would have been polite to give you the chance to mule over the details etc

 

 

 

Have they told you what their plans are?

[nannamoon1]

Hi,

I can see nothing that would be illegal to be honest, only thing is, they should have given the outcome in writing and offered you the chance of a witness there.

Also it would have been polite to give you the chance to mule over the details etc

 

 

 

Have they told you what their plans are?

 

Right, we will get the decision if we are to keep our jobs next thurs or friday, as said at present 3 of us do a total of 80 hours and we have been told that we have to re-apply for our positions as the office positions are being reconstructed.

 

However these are my concerns

 

1) at our one to one Interview we were told that the current JOB TITLE is redundant (not the job role just the title) we were then given a job description which is exactly the same role as I am doing now. so just because they have changed the job title this is classed as "reconstruction"

 

2) why take on a full timer just 5 weeks ago knowing full well that you are going to cut the branch's allocation from 80hrs to 60hrs, you are not telling me the company did not know that this was in the pipe line?

 

3) why were told that a member of HR, my boss and someone from security would be at the one to one Interviews, yet when we got there there was only my boss conducting the Interviews.

 

4) we were not offered the choice of having a witness

[Jase1982]

Right, we will get the decision if we are to keep our jobs next thurs or friday, as said at present 3 of us do a total of 80 hours and we have been told that we have to re-apply for our positions as the office positions are being reconstructed.

 

However these are my concerns

 

1) at our one to one Interview we were told that the current JOB TITLE is redundant (not the job role just the title) we were then given a job description which is exactly the same role as I am doing now. so just because they have changed the job title this is classed as "reconstruction"

 

2) why take on a full timer just 5 weeks ago knowing full well that you are going to cut the branch's allocation from 80hrs to 60hrs, you are not telling me the company did not know that this was in the pipe line?

 

3) why were told that a member of HR, my boss and someone from security would be at the one to one Interviews, yet when we got there there was only my boss conducting the Interviews.

 

4) we were not offered the choice of having a witness

 

Hello,

 

I've just been through a similar thing. Not restructuring, but outright redudundancy.

 

I assume it is just the 3 office staff being consulted?

 

The fact that only your boss was at the meeting doesn't really matter. We had consultations that were supposed to be held between us, the MD, Operations Director, and the HR manager. Never happened that way!

 

The witness that you should have been allowed to take with you should have been either an employee of the company, or a union rep. Not a spouse or significant other....

 

You should stop concentrating on the Why's and the where for's. Concentrate on what you wish to achieve.

 

It sounds like they are cutting costs by firing an employee. To do this they should have to prove that the job and work load no longer exists. You or one of your colleagues may have a possible case for unfair selection. If the work's still there and they make one member of staff redundant, over another, that's unfair selection. Depends if you are all doing the same sort of work.

 

I would just accept it. Your employer wish to make someone redundant, and they will carry it out at the end of the day. Even if they pay redundancy or get taken to a tribunal - it's happening. Pray it won't be you. If it is you, you need to work out whether you want to take them to a tribunal or accept their terms and try to negotiate a suitable redundancy package.

 

*****Disclaimer*****

Should any one disagree with my personal experience and / or opinnions, please do not verbally attack and insult me

*******************************************************

[nannamoon1]

Hello,

 

I've just been through a similar thing. Not restructuring, but outright redudundancy.

 

I assume it is just the 3 office staff being consulted?

 

The fact that only your boss was at the meeting doesn't really matter. We had consultations that were supposed to be held between us, the MD, Operations Director, and the HR manager. Never happened that way!

 

The witness that you should have been allowed to take with you should have been either an employee of the company, or a union rep. Not a spouse or significant other....

 

You should stop concentrating on the Why's and the where for's. Concentrate on what you wish to achieve.

 

It sounds like they are cutting costs by firing an employee. To do this they should have to prove that the job and work load no longer exists. You or one of your colleagues may have a possible case for unfair selection. If the work's still there and they make one member of staff redundant, over another, that's unfair selection. Depends if you are all doing the same sort of work.

 

I would just accept it. Your employer wish to make someone redundant, and they will carry it out at the end of the day. Even if they pay redundancy or get taken to a tribunal - it's happening. Pray it won't be you. If it is you, you need to work out whether you want to take them to a tribunal or accept their terms and try to negotiate a suitable redundancy package.

 

*****Disclaimer*****

Should any one disagree with my personal experience and / or opinnions, please do not verbally attack and insult me

*******************************************************

 

This process is throughout the company, not just at our branch, all other branches have 1 office person, the reason we have 3 is we are the biggest branch in the UK.

 

Basically I am the office manager, and I have 2 assistants one of whom has only been with the company for 5 weeks, obviously the one that has only been with the company for 5 weeks has not learnt the the whole job in any case, the other assistant basically help with everything, but does not chase the debts.

 

The work load will remain the same, if not get more as the company has just bought the unit next door, and i am told there are plans for bigger & better things at our branch.

 

Basically nothing has changed the new job description is exactly the same as the old one, the only thing that has changed is the job title and the fact they think we only need an allocation of 60 hours to do the work load and a head count of 2 (however my boss did say that he did not have a problem with the actual head count, but he would have to put it through his boss)

[cal37]

Right, we will get the decision if we are to keep our jobs next thurs or friday, as said at present 3 of us do a total of 80 hours and we have been told that we have to re-apply for our positions as the office positions are being reconstructed.

 

However these are my concerns

 

1) at our one to one Interview we were told that the current JOB TITLE is redundant (not the job role just the title) we were then given a job description which is exactly the same role as I am doing now. so just because they have changed the job title this is classed as "reconstruction"

 

They can in fact do this and many companies do.

 

2) why take on a full timer just 5 weeks ago knowing full well that you are going to cut the branch's allocation from 80hrs to 60hrs, you are not telling me the company did not know that this was in the pipe line?

 

Their mistake maybe? who knows but they have the right to hire and fire who they wish. the fact that shes been there only 5 weeks makes it easier for them

 

3) why were told that a member of HR, my boss and someone from security would be at the one to one Interviews, yet when we got there there was only my boss conducting the Interviews.

 

Makes no difference at all. They can have who they wish in a meeting with you or the lack of as it happens.

 

4) we were not offered the choice of having a witness

 

My bad here under Employment Relations Act 1999, you right to be accompanied by a work colleague or union official at a disciplinary or grievance hearing. However you are not dealing with a hearing under the Employment Relations Act 1999.

 

There is a ACAS code of practice about that states you have a right to be accompanied in your situation and i will dig it out tomorrow when i`m at work.

 

As i said before, you need to get hold of the new terms and conditions and get them looked at by someone who knows the legal ins and outs.

 

I should add, regardless of there only being 3 of you in the office or even only yourself, if you had been a member of a trade union they would of had the right to deal with this for you.My advice is to join a trade union so you never have this again.

[nannamoon1]

As i said before, you need to get hold of the new terms and conditions and get them looked at by someone who knows the legal ins and outs.

 

I should add, regardless of there only being 3 of you in the office or even only yourself, if you had been a member of a trade union they would of had the right to deal with this for you.My advice is to join a trade union so you never have this again.

 

Hindsight is a great thing, when my boss told me that they thought that we needed a full time person to help, I did say at the time that we did not need a full time person, (a part timer would have been adequate) as there would not be enough work, however he has since admitted to me that I was right, and we did not actually need a full time person.

 

He has said to me that the full timer had asked about the selection process , i.e how they will decide who to keep who to let go, the selection process is going to be done on appraisals which we all had a few weeks ago, she informed my boss that this would not be a fair process for her as she could not compete with anyone in our area as she has only been with the company for 5 weeks and her score was low due to this. I have to agree with her comment, as this would not be a fair selection process for her. so not sure how they are going to use a fair selection process due to this.

[Jezanator]

Your employers are legally entitled to revisit workloads/job titles and announce that all of your posts are to be made redundant. If they then wish to adjust job titles/hours and create, say, two new posts with certain hours, you will have the choice to go through a selection process (usually interview, plus looking at your appraisals/sick absence/length of service). They will then select those of you who fit the new role in terms of capability & hours. This is process that needs to be followed carefully by your employer if they are not to fall foul of employment law. This could lead you to bring a case of unfair redundancy if procedures were not carried through properly.

 

Sorry for being so long-winded! You might just take a look at the ACAS website - an excellent source of reference which is surprisingly user-friendly. Good luck.

 

Jezanator's wife