Hi,

I have recently been made redundant from my post as HR Advisor for a national training company. The company previously comprised 28 teams across the country sellling training courses to raise funds, plus one HQ site providing the usual central support functions (which did not have any income as the teams did). However due to financial problems and an over-generous benefits package, the Senior Management Team decided in May it was time to act.

Three elements to this:

Firstly, I was present at a meeting over a year ago which was convened to discuss reducing the level of benefit provision as it was clear the company could no longer afford it. No decisions were made and the benefits did not change.

Secondly, in October 08 a redundancy consultation was initiated with the intention of reducing the workforce by shedding the lowest-earning teams. No redundancies were made and the process stopped after the second individual consultation meeting.

Thirdly...

In May 08 the redundancy issue raised its ugly head again, this time with the SMT setting both HQ and teams in its sights. Some HQ posts were dependent upon teams being open so their posts were quite fairly placed at risk, as were a few admin support posts which weren't really viable anyway. Then the news came that one of the two HR Advisor posts was to go...with no clear justification.

A collective consultation process began, but none of the suggestions for alternative reconfigurations were addressed by the SMT. Lo - suddenly both the HR Advisor posts were put at risk with no justification! In addition, throughout both the collective and individual consultation processes, the selection criteria for HQ staff (in particular HR) were requested of the SMT, the only response being something along the lines of, 'the SMT believe the company can function without this/these posts' (clearly not subjective unlike the teams for whom specific selection criteria were formed). in total 7 members of staff were displaced into 2 roles, and the HR Advisors (clearly a specialist post) were put into the same pool as general admin staff in order for one of the HR Advisors (on mat leave) to be redeployed into one of the 2 remaining roles.

Interestingly no one spoke to either myself my colleague or my manager prior to deciding that the HR workload was insufficient to support three people, and the general feedback from the collective consultations was that the business would not manage with an HR team of one!

My individual consultation sessions were convened firstly with my own line manager, who had been on sick leave and could not provide the necessary information, then with an HR consultant who understandably was toe-ing the party line. Meetings were held with only a couple of days' notice, and the whole process from start to finish took about 40 days.

To add to this, two posts in HQ were combined which would have resulted in a new post and one redundancy, but this post was not put into the pot of suitable alternatives!!

Adding insult to injury, two of the other 'redundees' are now being taken back into the business on a 'casual consultancy' basis to cover project work etc at a much more favourable rate of pay, although the same opportunity has not been afforded to anyone else.

I have appealed, my letter having been submitted at the end of July. The hearing is scheduled for September 1st AFTER the investigation has been convened...which seems a bit perverse...after all how do they know what to investigate???

Anyone have any thoughts or advice on this matter?

Thanks
C