Redundancy selection process query

Hi,

Can anybody shed any light on the selection process for redundancy based on geographical location? The situation is my company has 6 area sales reps in the North of England who all cover different areas. They all have the same job title and description but look after different stores. However, head office have decided that my area no longer needs an area manager because they are creating two smaller areas that can be looked after by local area managers who are store based (as there is less travelling). These local area manager positions will be on less pay and have their own stores to run too. As such, I am in a selection pool of one and have been told that my job will be made redundant. I have been given the option to accept a transfer to a similar role in London (not suitable for me to relocate due to young family) or to accept one of the lesser roles in my area. I see that as a demotion and I think the other store managers in my area will feel the same - making it an impossible choice for me - as it would be difficult to continue to manage them (as well as the financial loss). The company stated in their letter to me that they suggest I take the demotion as that will be the best way to continue my career with them - which I find a strange thing to say.

So my query is - is it acceptable that they only consider me for redundancy because it is my area - or should they also consider all of the other northern area managers, given that the job roles are identical?

Also, one of the local area manager roles that are being offered to me is larger in size to one of the areas covered by one of the other area managers (the position I currently hold). So is it fair that they are asking me to reduce my salary when this person looks after less stores for the more senior package?

I would love to know anyone's thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Joe.

How an employer manages their selction criteria, whatever they are based on, is their business. The law only says that it must be fair and objective - it does not lay out what that means. It may be fair to consider only one area at any time, if the "area" is treated as a separate estblishment. The fact thatothers in different locations may have the same job isn't the test - it is this test of "separate establishments", which isn't an easy test to apply and would require legal advice to challenge (because it sounds rather as though they have a set up which may qualify as separate). You cannot be forced to take a job which is less pay or less status, but that does mean that you will be made redundant. I am not sure that I can helpfully comment on the fairness of the size of areas - in the end an employer can offer whatever pay they want, and if there was any legal mileage in your argument about the size of the areas then it would need the whole context reviewing. I agree that in the world's view it doesn't seem fair - but that is far different from what the law says is fair.