Risk of redundancy

Hi,

I was given a letter in work last Thursday advising me my role is at risk of redundancy. I have a meeting with my HR head and line manager this Thursday to find out more. I am concerned i may have been selected unfairly as the letter states my role at xxxx location is at risk of redundancy. I believe my role at this location is required and can financially support my role. I just want some advise on how to respond in the meeting and what i can say to let them know i am clued up on this area of the law. I have had little mentions from my line manager for the last 6 months that my wage at this practice is too high and they have been using me elsewhere in the business to try and spread out the cost over various sites. I work for a corporate dental company and manage a very sucessful practice within the group, if not the most sucessful and high earning practice in the group.
Any advice is much appriciated. I am shocked at this possible redundancy and am scared for the future. What happens with my role in future/? By saying the role of manager is redundant how do they legally get someone to do my job after making me redundant.

Thanks

Eve

They will need to explain their decision to you, including what will happen to your existing responsibilities. You need to bear in mind that you don't get to decide whether the company 'need' your job or not, they do. If they decide they don't need anyone doing your job at your location, regardless of whether you think that's sensible or not, that's a valid decision for them to make.

The questions are whether the redundancy is genuine and whether you were selected fairly. If they have genuinely decided that they don't need anyone in your job at all, then the redundancy is probably genuine. If you have reason to believe they will still have someone in your job, or other dodgy activities are going on, then possible the redundancy isn't genuine.

In terms of fair selection, it depends on the reasons for the redundancy. If there is more than one person doing the same or very similar job, then it would probably need to be selection from a pool, with criteria used properly.

Once they've explained their decision to you more fully, you will then be able to take a view as to whether they genuinely are going to manage without your role, and if so, whether it was fair to select you for redundancy rather than anyone else.

Hi,

Thanks for your response and so fast too. All i know at present is no other manager in the group of practices have been effected. Surely if every other practice needs a manager why wouldnt this one. I have been told today by HR that no selection process was used as i am the only one doing that role in that location. How can they choose one site to make the cut fairly.

Thanks again

Evelbaron

It depends on their reasons. If their reasons are that they no longer require someone in your post at that location, or if the reasons are otherwise specific to your location, then it's fine for it to only be you included. Whether or where they can manage without an individual in your post is a business decision for them to make, not for you to make. It may be that your location is over budget and others are not, for example (regardless of whether your role can be 'financially supported') as you say.

If you think about it in terms of different departments in an organisation, all employing someone in the same type of role. The organisation needs to reduce headcount and decides that x department can manage without that role, whereas y department can't. That's a business decision. You may think that y department could just as easily manage without the role, but that's not your decision to make.

If they then do keep someone in your role, either recruiting someone new or having someone move to fill your role, then that would be unfair, which is why you need to make sure you get all of the reasons for your selection and details of what will happen next in your location.