Redundancy selection grounds

Padraig Mor

Background
My wife began work with a business about three years ago. She was taken on as Manager of a new outlet for this business, i.e. she has worked there since the very first day it opened. Despite being employed as Manager, in reality she spends the vast majority of her time (90%+) doing ‘normal’ work, same as the other employees (total staff < 10). Her contract specifies 39 hours per week. However, following maternity leave, she returned to work earlier this year on a (voluntary) 3 day week by mutual agreement. No changes to contract were made. She has never had any problems at work – never been disciplined etc.

The problem
Things have slowed down and they need to lower staff costs. Fair enough. One person has already been let go for the summer (with no guarantee of work after that). Today they told my wife that they can no longer justify paying a manager and will be laying her off for four or five weeks this summer, and putting her on a 2 day week after that (business can normally be expected to pick up in Sept). She was given the choice of this or being made ‘properly’ redundant. There had been no prior discussion about this. While they intend leaving my wife go, they are keeping on staff who have considerably less experience in the business (including one still on probation - these staff would also not be as qualified as my wife). Indeed, it seems that they may actually increase the hours of one staff member (presumably to cover my wife’s hours). As mentioned, while my wife is employed as Manager, in reality she does the same work as the others most of the time. It may also be pertinent that my wife is paid more than the others – however, no reduction in pay was discussed with her.

The question
My question is re the grounds for selection for redundancy. Does anyone here have any experience in this regard? While I doubt ‘Last in, First out’ is a legally enforceable principle, can they just get rid of her in favour of less experienced, cheaper staff – who essentially do the same job? Or do that without even discussing any alternative?


Mods: I am aware that this is treading on ‘legal advice’ territory. However, I am looking for posters’ experience and will be taking proper legal advice if they persist with this action.

leeroybrown

The two things to note is that they make the position redundant not the person and that they need to select fairly for redundancy. If they make the position of manager redundant then your wife is the only fair selection. That extra +/-10% of her time should be sufficient for them to consider her position different and worthy of individual consideration in a redundancy situation. In my experience/opinion that would be sufficient to cover them so long as they then don't give exactly those same duties to another staff member.

clevtrev

as far as I understand the employer must consult with you on the redundancy and look at options such as offering you an alternative job if there is one available and you are skilled to perform it. They can however expect that you work at the appropriate rate for that job i.e accept a pay cut. If this is not done then you may have a claim for unfair dismissal.

Your wife should request details of their selection criteria. If it is based upon the fact your wife is a manager and they dont want one then she should request a role as a team member and let them then apply additional criteria to the team i.e. LIFO or performance (if reviews are performed etc.)

Padraig Mor

Thanks for the replies guys. The owners seem to be have been pretty careful alright in phrasing it as not needing a manager, rather than not needing her per se. I guess it comes down to whether her role can be interpreted as being a 'normal' staff role more than being a manager.

Trev: we will be contacting them alright to ask for written details of the selction criteria for redundancy. That they did not discuss any alternative position (despite having staff doing similar work just 'in the door') would also seem not to be in 100% compliance with the law.

leeroybrown

A slight correction/modification to my earlier point. Even if the percentage of her time spent on managerial duties is small, if she's employed in the position of manager and paid as such they will be able to make that position redundant. Any argument that she spends almost all of her time doing the work of an ordinary staff member would actually be self-defeating as it proves that her position is indeed redundant.

Mrs OBumble

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Thanks for the replies guys. The owners seem to be have been pretty careful alright in phrasing it as not needing a manager, rather than not needing her per se. I guess it comes down to whether her role can be interpreted as being a 'normal' staff role more than being a manager.

Trev: we will be contacting them alright to ask for written details of the selction criteria for redundancy. That they did not discuss any alternative position (despite having staff doing similar work just 'in the door') would also seem not to be in 100% compliance with the law.

Can I suggest that you think very hard about what exactly you want to achieve.

If it's feelings of justice/vindication/etc, then go ahead.

But if keeping a (harmonious) part-time job is important, your wife might want to think twice about whether to rock the boat or not. She's being offered a 2-day week (without any mention of a cut to the hourly rate), it will be difficult to find another job that has a three day week.

Just a suggestion ...