[Closed] Redundancy Advice

How many people are at risk? If it's more than (I think, but this may have changed) 30, then there will need to be a collective consultation process which will take time - 90 days IIRC. If less then it will be an individual consultation and the process will move very rapidly and could conclude within a few weeks.

Union involvement won't make much, if any, difference as the process is very clearly defined in the UK and it's really not hard to adhere to it; ultimately it's this adherence where companies slip up and where a union will help then leverage that error to your advantage. It's a game and it sucks (I've been though it several times) but ultimately if her role has been put at risk, then chances are she will be made redundant.

Her position as a maternity returner does give her a little extra 'cover', meaning that they need to be very careful to follow that process correctly. If they slip up even a little then she will have some leverage to negotiate the terms of an exit, but exit is what it will still result in.

The key to the process is making sure that the employer acts in good faith, fairly and objectively. Every effort needs to be made to consult without prejudice and to find suitable alternatives where they exist. The criteria for selection (for redundancy) need to be made clear and shared so that those at risk know why they have been selected. Valid criteria include things like performance appraisals and attendance records (i.e. sickness).

The best piece of advice I can offer however is to tell her to try and find a way to move on quickly and without resentment (assuming of course there are no legitimate reasons to suspect a discrininatory elements to this - but on that point, also advise her that it's very easy to believe this is a factor when you're coming back from mat leave. That whole period before and after having kids is hugely emotional and can skew the way you interpret things - I've been there myself and so speak from experience!).

I suspect the manager going through (motions of) the annual review was as unaware of the impending at risk situation as she was.
I've been through the "at risk" scenario 3 times in the past 20 years.
First time, they found me a different role and I stayed
Second time (different company), others were made redundant, I wasn't
Third time was a takeover from a US company and everyone, who didn't get a position with the new (NL based) EU wing of the co, was eventually out the door.
So, it's hard to say really.
Plus, what jude said.

Everyone I know who has been made redundant has ended up somewhere better. Not a scientifically significant sample but reason enough to not think it's all doom and gloom.

In fact, you'll often find that those who keep their jobs end up having a harder time if it. Chances are, the company will still want the same amount if work done, just by fewer people.

The red flag to me is "returning from maternity leave" - is she only one at risk? If so, joining a union seems wise.

That said, they may offer a deal that makes it worth her while, especially if she is saving on childcare costs as well as leaving with a decent payment, may enable her to go part time instead

I've been made redundant twice, both straight to better things.

Joining a union now - she might get some support but generally unions do not like representing folk that have not been members until they need it.

While the process might be clear my experience is that employers almost always muck it up. Best advice I have is wait till they make a mess of the redundancy, threaten tribunal ( and I think but not sure she would be able to do so as she is returning from mat leave even if less than 2 years) then accept a large payoff to walk away and shut up

See whats offered and check the process TUC and ACAS sites are useful

this is why everyone should be in a union. It costs pennies and can save your ass

Tell her to immediately start polishing up her CV and to get into the mindset of she needs to find work. An early start on this is good as even if she's not let go it's not wasted time. As for the actual process, make sure she keeps the company in check on correct proceedures and timescales. Any slip ups won't save her job but can be used to get an extra bit of pay or redundancy money that will help in the short term. The most important one though is don't burn bridges, she'll never know who's path she might cross in the future at other jobs or even go back to her current one sometime in the future.

Everyone I know who has been made redundant has ended up somewhere better. Not a scientifically significant sample but reason enough to not think it’s all doom and gloom.

In fact, you’ll often find that those who keep their jobs end up having a harder time if it. Chances are, the company will still want the same amount if work done, just by fewer people.

I'll echo that, having just come out of the other side of finding a new permanent job. My new job isn't better than my old job was before the redundancy was announced but it sure as hell is better than the old job is now! I have kept in touch with a few of the guys who stayed on and the company now is nowhere near as nice to work at as it was. Much more work for less people and lots more stress. I was even asked if I would go back but even though they've since had a decent pay rise I turned it down as I have moved on and the new job suits me fine and is a fresh start.

then accept a large payoff to walk away and shut up

You'd be surprised how hard it is to do that (I have direct personal experience of this). My wife was told (whilst still pregnant) that she was being made redundant because one job had to go and, as she was pregnant, it would be her. Great we thought - big pay-off time but no – when we started the process the company offered her job back and sacked her boss for doing what she did then offered a much smaller compensation (about £3k IIRC) when my wife said she couldn't go back even if her old boss wasn't there given the circumstances. Our solicitor said we should accept the offer.

and I think but not sure she would be able to do so as she is returning from mat leave even if less than 2 years

Protection from being discriminated against a protected characteristic is granted from day one of your employment. If there is no protected characteristic involved in your dismissal (whether than be redundancy or otherwise), then you need two years service before you get protection against unfair dismissal.

A lot of companies do 'muck it up' but your ability to leverage that in a negotiated settlement will depend on how badly they muck it up and how long you've been in employment with them. You can make anyone redundant, even someone on parental leave (as we call it now), you just have to be careful to follow the process and as is pointed out above, your ability to negotiate a better settlement is not quite as easy as suggested by TJ. It's a hugely challenging process, which is time consuming and full of emotional blind alleys; it's designed this way to prevent vexatious claims.

Jude

the thing I was not sure about was if the mat leave is a protected characteristic

the negotiations after they make a mess of process are pretty straightforward

" You have failed to follow process in these areas therefore this becomes a unfair dismissal, i will take it to tribunal unless you make it worth my while not to" there is no process as such and certainly not "it’s designed this way to prevent vexatious claims". Its a negotiation. I agree not to get emotionally invested in it.

Both me and my missus dealt with this a number of times. Defending an unfair dismissal claim will cost the company a couple of thousand. You have to be prepared to follow thru the threat tho

the thing I was not sure about was if the mat leave is a protected characteristic

It is; it's regarded as indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex since only females can get pregnant and thus take 'maternity' leave. The way the law is structured is kind of interesting in this respect as men still don't have a right to anything more than two weeks statutory paternity leave. If they want more than this, then it has to be 'donated' to them by the mother of the child (from her maternity leave entitlement).

It's also why it's still permissable to offer differentiated levels of benefit to men and women taking parental leave, i.e. a company offers enhanced maternity leave benefit (which only female employees can take) but not enhanced parental leave benefit (which fathers would take). Some companies, such as Diageo, have taken the step to equalise these enhanced packages but they are the minority. Until this equalisation becomes law, the burden of parental leave will likely remain with the mothers rather than the fathers.

While the process might be clear my experience is that employers almost always muck it up.

This. Just because the HR people have used the method before doesn’t mean that they are right.