Redundancy - Alternative Roles

Hi, first time poster here and after some advice which hopefully then I will be able to share with my colleagues also.

I am currently in a redundancy situation with my employer (a local authority) and notice of a 90 day consultation was made several weeks ago (as an aside I was on leave at the time, and wasn't invited but did then receive a letter that my job was at risk).

Due to an organisation restructure, they are looking to recruit 8 people to one role (loosely related to what we do now) (Position A) and 4 to a slightly lesser role with some of the existing functions of our current role added (Position B). Following a period of voluntary redundancies, we now have 11 people (one works part time) for these 12 positions.

We have now been told that, instead of using a format within our redundancy procedure (set criteria) that we will all be interviewed for the roles on offer. The thinking is that the top 8 will get the re-drafted current role (Position A) but that the three unsuccessful candidates for Position A will be offered (we assume, no-one is actually telling us) Position B.

At present they are re-evaluating the current role (A) and putting this through a job evaluation process to get a salary scale for it, which we believe will come out less (intentionally) and it is only reasonable that Position B will be salaried at less than A.

Looking at the options for alternative work, I understand we can trial the job for up to four weeks but can give notice if the role is unsuitable (i.e. pay/travel time/conditions etc.) If this were to be the case, especially as the pay is likely to be substantially less (upwards of £3k for position A, £4-7k for position B) would this be reasonable grounds to reject the offer as unsuitable?

As yet we have been given no details of a job description for either of the new roles.

If the role was unsuitable, would it then be that we could leave by means of redundancy or would the employer have to continue to look or offer alternative roles (we are all on a so called redeployment register but have received no support or advice in how to apply for these, even if the jobs were suitable - which they are not).

With regards travel, we do not have a designated office base on our contracts but would be relocated around 6 miles further away. The office I work at (and have since 2007) is currently 25 minutes walk away, yet the new office would be around 40-45 minutes away, involving 2 buses and additional expense in getting to work. Would this also be considered as reasonable in rejecting the new role (whichever I get).

Sorry it's so long and probably a little disjointed, but I hope someone is able to advise as it's clearly a very stressful time for my colleagues and myself. Any relevant links to legislation would also be very handy.

And yes, we have looked at seeking union advice but even they offer conflicting information and I'm not personally a member! Senior managers also don't seem to know or want to tell us anything about what is happening/what will happen/likely timescales etc.

Many thanks

A drop in pay can certainly be grounds to refuse a role as suitable - assuming you have no pay protection in these circumstances, which many public sector workers do. If you do, then you would be on quicksand, even if the protection was for a limited time until wages catch up. Travel is more dodgy. You do not have a designated office and so relocation is reasonable - and six miles is certainly not an unreasonable distance - so no, I don't think this one would wash unless the employer wanted to let it! What may be an unreasonable refusal in law is not one if the employer agrees it isn't!

Competitive interviews is an acceptable method of selection albeit not the one used in other circumstances - I doubt this would be unfair in itself.

Thanks for that clarification. With regards pay protection, we are being told that as the new roles are being re-written essentially that pay protection would not apply, although our senior managers seem unable to confirm this to us at the moment which I find surprising.

Fully understand your point about the travel however. The reduction we estimate they will assess the jobs at mean a reduction in pay of 15% for Post A (essentially a team leader type position) and 25% for Post B (a co-ordinator type role). Even with pay protection, such is the pay grade system in operation, it will never catch up to existing pay due to upper bands of each pay grade.

One other thing, I've read somewhere about the need to have one to one consultations regarding the redundancy. Is this a statutory requirement? As yet I've had (on a personal basis) no meetings, including the one where we were informed our jobs were at risk but received a letter stating that following my meeting with my line manager they were confirming in writing that my job was at risk. Have they messed up on something here? I did mention to my manager I've not yet had any formal meeting or discussion about my position being at risk and was bluntly told "well no-one has".

They must talk to you 121 at some point, but it is often after the redundancy is confirmed. Don't spend a lot of time looking for cracks in process - Council's rarely make mistakes big enough to get through! I am a bit surprised on the pay protection (although it's clear you don't understand it - I'll explain in a minute) - most council's have such policies in place, but I suppose it's possible some have ditched it. Pay protection doesn't protect your grade - it protects the amount of money you make. So if the new job is paid at £75 - for simplicity - and you get £100, you stay on £100 with no pay increases for any reason, until, with pay increases, the £75 becomes £100! Does that make sense. Eventually, SO2's will get paid what PO4's currently get paid, but they will still be SO2's. Don't even get me started on the days when my months shopping cost £30, and I wasn't being frugal!

Thanks once again SarEl, it's certainly helped clear a few things up in my mind and I'd not thought of the pay protection angle. I do understand about pay protection, to some degree, but probably not in the way you have explained it. As I've said, we're being given an indication to pay protection wouldn't be offered to us, but that could be misinformation, an error or simply scaremongering as there is, as you can probably imagine, a lot of conflicting information around the place right now, including whether protection would apply, and if so, for how long that might be the case.

As for the 1-2-1 meetings, I understand what you're saying there too, but it seems to me they have no intention on meeting with us (they've certainly not done with those taking VR, other than to confirm an exit date and asking for things like ID badges etc.) and given some of the management in place, it wouldn't surprise me if they've completely overlooked this themselves, however they could always surprise us I suppose!

Anyway, off to Tesco it is for me.....

Looking for job - or shopping!

That was for shopping, now I think it might be for a job!

Was informed at 1.24pm today that, following the restructuring and criteria being used (we all agreed to this process, although we were not told what that criteria would be) that there is no longer a post for me.

Instead I've been offered a job share role (18.5 hours) which I have said I would have to decline on financial grounds, although I would be willing to combine two job share posts and failing that I have to apply for redeployment opportunities. The first being an interview (secured) this coming Thursday.

I've expressed concern at the notice and the fact I don't know anything about the job (yet) but more worryingly, although it is only another 6.5 miles from home, for myself it is only accessible by public transport (one bus per hour) and will involve start times from 7am and finishes from 10pm.

As this would lead to around 1-1hr 30 (each way) of additional travelling time, again I ask, would it be feasible that I could argue that the excessive travelling time would be reason enough to argue that the offer of the role, if appointed, is not suitable?

Currently I am in a predominantly 9-5 role and within walking distance from work, therefore travel has never ordinarily been a problem.

I do have some other concerns around the criteria used, but I am awaiting to see the scores first before I pursue this (SAR request ready and raring to go).

I know I can trial it and see how it goes (and I am on a redeployment register for six months) but I have been advised that if the trial is unsuccessful and my post has been deleted I will be made compulsorily redundant (even though I would have time remaining on the register). This differs from what was previously advised and is written in policy.

You could argue to decline it - but I cannot in all honesty say that it is safe as 6.5 miles is not an unreasonable distance. And a job in the hand is better than a JSA payment every two weeks which probably won't pay the bus fare to Tesco!!! How about a bike - you can get fit too! Seriously. Right now turning down a council job over a few miles is crazy. Sorry, but you should see what other people work for before passing up staying on. And inside is the place to be for internal appointments in the future.

Thanks once more for your very sound and reasoned advice. I think I will see what tomorrow brings. An additional 7-9 hours travelling a week (if the buses run) isn't something I particularly relish. When I know more about working patterns (which could substantially impact on a lot of other personal factors) I'll be able to make a reasoned judgement. I certainly hope so anyway.

One good thing already though. Explained the situation nicely to my phone/net/tv/mobile providers and secured in total a £36 a month saving. Should have done it weeks ago!

Just be very cautious - turning down a suitable alternative role is potentially a costly mistake and this could be one. You see it as an extra 7-9 hours travelling time - but that isn't the case. Being dependant on buses is your issue, not the employers - it is only 6.5 miles away and no tribnal in the land is going to consider that an unreasonable distance. Remember, you have no permanant office base contractually anyway!