Legal action *before* redundancies--possible?

This post relates to the UK-wide redundancies taking place in FE and HE, primarily in many universities. Some of the redundancies are clearly legal and understandable (if unfortunate): a university or department is in financial trouble and must remove staff to balance the books, sometimes even removing a whole department. That is straightforward. The main question here is different: What if the finances are solid, but the institution wants higher rankings (by Times Higher Ed for example) -- would removing faculty with this motivation count as 'redundancies'? The goal is even mentioned outright: after some staff are removed, they will be replaced by other staff with no delays to recruitment. The criteria cover a portion of the job description, are arbitrary, and use outdated information, but the plan is to use them as an 'objective' way to select staff to be made redundant.

The primary query is whether anything can be done legally in advance to oppose this, or can legal action only be taken post hoc? Does the process as described really count as 'redundancies' rather than some other term? These are avoidable, however that does not matter to 'management'.

Cheers for any feedback.

(a) Since you haven't been dismissed until your contract has terminated you cannot take legal action for terminating your contract before it has happened.

(b) In law financial reasons are not the definition of redundancy - it isn't a case of making people redundant because you can't afford them. It is because there is a diminsihed need for the post. There can be many reasons for this diminished need.

(c) There is nothing stopping an employer making new appointments after redundancies in theory - provided that the positions are different to the positions lost

(d) Whther the situation described conforms to the legal requirments would not be clear from this information

Thank you for the reply! Re (c): So unions can only threaten with industrial, not legal, action I take it. Re (b) and (d): there are degree courses in FE and HE that are not being taken away. For example, in a law school teaching employment law. If one member of staff is made redundant then a new member of staff must be hired to teach that same course and modules. Thus the only difference between the redundant one and the recruited one is that the employer wants the new one to have the same teaching, administrative work, and area of research but the research output should be more internationally recognised. Would that count as 'different to the positions lost'? The criteria seem to make a clear case of dismissing staff due to not being judged capable (capable meaning publications in the top journals possible), and that the degree courses will be maintained (they are in surplus after all) by hiring new staff who are more capable in one aspect of the job description (research fame) and the other aspects (teaching quality) are irrelevant.

Cheers!

It strikes me that your best opportunity of defeating this, individually or collectively, is through your union. If you have to go to law then it is too late - your jobs are gone. No compensation will make up for that. And knowing this sector, you will struggle to obtain employment again within the sector if you go to tribunal - the sector is cliquey, and information about people flows in "unofficial ways".

Thank you, this has all been very informative.