First post. Unfairly selected and at Risk of redundancy & offered other position

Hi All,
My company was bought by another company (All Staff TUPE'd over) I previously worked for the company that bought us and had resigned to work/start up for the new company that was subsequently bought.

At the begining of September the company summoned myself and two other managers (one senior manager) to a meeting together at once (the three managers jobs/roles are totally unrelated) and we were told this was the start of the redundancy consultation period and that all of our roles where at risk for reorganisation/economic reasons. (This was done as a group and not individually.)

However there were two exculsive roles that we could apply for. The senior manager applied for his role and after jumping through the hoops and hurdles he was successful in his application.

Myself and the other manager applied for the other new vacancy which was totally different from our current roles, however both of us had worked in this role previously for the company which had just bought us. We both jumped through hoops and hurdles via the interview process and neither of us were succesful in landing the role (both of us do not have any adverse work history or any attendance issues) The company has now advertised this position to all employees of the company and at present is still open.

It was then that I found this excellent website/forum and started reading and learning.

So the current state of play for myself is:
After the we were bought this created within the company two departments both doing the same work functions, along with two managers doing the same job. Myself and the other manager (from the company that bought us)

Two weeks ago I questioned to HR dept the following:
"Please would you supply details of what selection criteria was used, along with the scoring, to decide who was to be pooled for risk of redundancy for the loss of this role and why my colleague doing the same job and with the same job title however was not selected for this pool?

As you are aware that any pool should contain 'all employees' who perform the same or similar type of work in a particular department. I believe that I have been unfairly selected for redundancy and that the selection pool should have been wider at least to include my fellow Manager as my role/position was not unique within the company. I respectfully request that the pool for the risk of redundancy for this role be reconsidered.

I also request a copy of the companies redundancy policy along with all of the minutes of our meeting on 6th September 2010 which as you know was the start of the redundancy consultation process."

In the meantime I have also applied for another position within the company as I really cannot afford to be out of work (this role is £3K less than my current position)

I received an email last week to attend a meeting where the answers to my questions would be given. I attended this meeting only to find that the HR manager has called in sick. The much senior (non HR) manager that I then spoke with at this meeting stated that he was aware of my unanswered questions to HR and that that was something for the HR manager to deal with on her return. However he offered me the other position that I had applied for and stated that he would protect my earnings for one year.

I believe that the HR manager is now back tracking trying to dig herself out of a hole for not carrying out a fair selection process.

If someone would be able to advise on the following I would be very greatful:

Was the intial consultation meeting carried out correctly, in that all three of us where summoned to the same meeting room and that individual consultation meetings where not carried out?

No selection criterias/etc for any of our positions were spoken about at all at this meeting, is this an issue?

Your thoughts on the points I've raised on my unanswered email to HR?

If I accept this alternative job offer can I still proceed in my quest for Unfair Selection for Redundancy and on what grounds/outcomes?

Many thanks in advance.

If you accept this role, then it would be hard to argue that it isn't a suitable alterative role - being a lesser salary is grounds to refuse it as such, but accepting it effectively nullifies that factor. And to be honest, it is hard to say how far you could go in arguing wether the selection was unfair without the answers to the questions that you have asked. Given this is a small number of redundancies, the process can be considerably more "compacted", but there certainly ought to be some individual consultation, and if others have the same role as you they perhaps should have been included in a wider pool. But the porblem is that without knowing what the employer says, it's almost impossible to really say that something has been done incorrectly. There is, however, one apparaent mistake in your assumptions here - there is no requirement to select criteria nd score people for putting them in the pool at risk - the selection criteria and scoring are relevant to the choices about who is made redundant, not which posts are at risk.

I think at this stage I might suggest putting in writing the fact that the post which you have been offered is not being refused, but that nor are you accepting it as a suitable alternative position because you have not had the questions that you asked answered, and you are awaiting their responses before deciding what your position is.

Hi SarEl,

Many thanks for your quick reply. I concur with your suggestion and will write to the company presently. I will update this post for future forum members when I receive a reply from the company. Once again thank you for your humble advice.

Regards
Scariba

I had the meeting today with HR manager and she informed me that my colleague from the company that bought us who is doing the the same job with the same job title was not selected for the pool because:

* He has under his dept approx 550 vehicles and 5 additional employees.
* I had under my dept approx 100 vehicles and 1 additional employee - who has now been transferred to his dept under new terms and conditions (We were the smaller company that was bought.)

* I was told that she compared our job descriptions and his job description entailed more than mine.
* I know that it does not to the degree that she indicated (I have asked for a copy of his job description to compare and the email reply that I received was this, "It is not normal practice to provide employees with job descriptions of other employee’s roles. So I am afraid this is not something I can provide.")

* I was told that he carries out more work than I do regarding fleet auditing and reporting of defects.
* I can prove the first is not true and the second is obviously relative to the vehicle fleet size and then again it is questionable how she came to this conclusion.

These were the reasons why he was not selected for the pool and I have asked HR to confirm this in writing.

I respectfully ask if anyone can give me their view on wheather or not I would have grounds in pursuing this matter any further?

Many thanks in advance.

P.S.
They have now offered me alternative employment with my earnings protected for one year then a loss of £3K and are pushing me for my answer by sending me a written formal offer in the next few days.

Ok. Well it's now down to whether you are a betting man. Literally! The grounds given, based on what you say, I believe may constitute unfair selection - but obviously I know very little and cannot guarantee that, so if you want to take this further you must get legal advice on that. So you could appeal making your points, and then go to tribunal for unfair dismissal.

You could do this whilst refusing the alternative (so you are out of work); or you could accept the alternative but under protest stating that you believe you have been unfairly dismissed (but you would need a very tough skin to work there and take your employer to tribunal as well) - or you accept that this is the way of the wrold and take what you can get. I cannot honestly advise you on which to do - except to say that if you intend to carry on the argument, possibly to tribunal, then you must be aware that you are taking a risk, and should not do so without detailed legal advice.