Unfair Redundancy?

Week commencing December 6th I was informed that my role was to be made redundant.

I have worked in one capacity or another for the firm for nearly 12 years, however approximately 3 years ago my reporting line changed and I was placed under a manager who was notorious within the organisation for having particularly bad man-management skills.

Over a period of 2 years he consistently and persistently undermined me, to the point that my health began to suffer, being first diagnosed with a stress related cardiac issue, before finally undergoing a complete breakdown, and being signed off from work for a number of weeks with severe depression.

I was "lucky" in that my underlying nature contributed to a stabilisation of my condition in a relatively short period of time, but the fact remains that I was, for a time, suicidal, I needed and received counselling, and to this day I remain on a substantial anti-depressant dose. My own view, and the view of my analysts and other medical supporters was clear in that my condition had been brought about by the treatment I had received from my manager.

My organisation has a good internal support network (to a point), so when the diagnosis became clear I was placed under the care of our Occupational Health team, Through-out June and July 2010, they initiated and supported a return to work program, which included a gradual rehabilitation in to the workplace and mediated meetings between myself and my line manager. In these meetings we addressed some of the (his) behaviour that had led to my breakdown, but it also became obvious to me that although the firm wanted to be seen to do the right thing, the underlying feeling on their part was that ultimately the weakness was mine, and that my manager had their fullest support.

With my return to work, things pretty much picked up where they had left off, the difference being that a combination of the medication I was taking, and the "tool-set" that CBT therapy had given me meant I was better able to survive the onslaught. As a measure of his behavior, between August and December 2010, 4 people from this manager's team either left or requested transfers, all citing his management style as a significant factor in their decision.

On the day I was informed of the decision to make my role redundant, the first thing I did was to check our on-line situations vacant to see if there were any suitable alternative posts within the department. There was a post advertised in my department, at my grade. It was a perfect fit. I e-mailed the link to my personal account so that I could apply as soon as I got home. Between first seeing the advertisement, at about 4.30 in the afternoon and my attempting to apply from home at approximately 8.00 in the evening, the position had been withdrawn. I later learnt that it had already been given to a guy who had been contracting on our site for a couple of years. The decision had been reached at the end of the previous week, immediately prior to my being told of my redundancy.

My manager contends that my role no longer constitutes a full time employee position, although analysis of the workload suggests otherwise. In his opinion, the function can be absorbed in to another role (which, at this time doesn't even exist), and undertaken by someone else.

I guess the question I'm asking you folks is, "Am I being treated fairly?".

I know it's the question everyone asks, but, to use emotive language, I do feel somewhat victamised.

Looking forward to your input folks…..

I fully understand how you feel, and to be honest it sounds as if you are correct to feel that way. But I don't see a legal case here - unfortunately the law doesn't operate on sympathy. The fact that the workload may continue to exist isn't relevant - the test of a redudnancy is whether there is a reduction in headcount (the post goes - not the work), and it would appear that this is the situation here. I don't like the fact that the job was offered the week before - but technically in law, they would only have breached a fair process if the recruitment had taken place after you received notice of being at risk. It's "bad timing" - but the job was not available at the time you saw it and had been given to someone before you were at risk. It may - provided it costs you nothing, be worth attempting a claim on this basis that the job could have been used to avoid your redundancy, and that this was a decisio9n based on your disabilitya nd a desire to get rid of you. I can't say I think that evidentially you have a lot to go on and the employers good practice in other aspects won't help you - it's dicey, to be honest - and also VERY stressful (which is something you should consdier given your health).

It stinks somewhat - but rank odours do not make a claim. I don't think you are being treated fairly - but I think that you will struggle to evidence that you are being treated legally unfairly. Sorry.

Thanks for this, but in point of clarification, it is not a reduction in headcount. In fact, headcount across the department is on the increase, albeit by only 1 or 2.

Across the department may not count - if they are reducing a specific area of work and increasing something else. But it did occur to me - the person who the work will go to - can you equally do their job. Because if so that would make a redundancy pool of at least two - and therefore necessitate a selection process between you. I would suggest that you do some googling on redundancy and see if you can get more familiar with what should happen - I can't know your workplace and therefore can't guess at what might be possible scenarios - but if you get better informed you might spot a possible secenario that I can advise further on. But in the absnece of that, as I said, it may be worth trying a claim, but I think it would be weak based on what you have so far.