Redundancy or apply for new role in same company

Deanicus

Hi,

I am looking for some advice

I was hired to do a particular and have worked at the company for nearly 9 years. Sometime last year the work I was doing started to dry up and I started doing other work instead. I have been doing this work for nearly a year

Last week I was notified that the role I was hired for was being made redundant but a new role is being advertised for and that I should apply for it.

The new role is virtually identical to what I have been doing for the last year albeit for a different team. In fact, the job spec is just as if someone wrote down what I do.

I was given two options

1. Take the redundancy
2. Apply for the new role and if successful I start in that new role on a lower salary. However there is no redundancy payment in this scenario

I was leaning towards the new role, despite the pay cut as I have a mortgage and a child. However a couple of things are bugging me

1. They said that if I got the new role that my years of service and existing benefits would carry through. Effectively the same contract but with less pay

2. However I would then be subject to a probationary period in the new role and if I did not pass it, I would be let go with no redundancy payment as it is a new role

Is any of this legal? If I take the new role and everything transfers over, surely if I am let go after 6 months I am entitled to redundancy as per my years of service?

My fear is that this could be a way of getting rid of me without the expense of a redundancy. I could "get" the job and after 6 months or even before, they can dismiss me and it costs them nothing

Any solicitors/union officials here with any advice or someone who has been in the same situation?

Diziet

the second point sounds iffy to me, and I would be inclined to pass it via an employment solicitor. And why a lower salary? Is it a lesser role? This sounds iffy too...

I would take some legal advice if I were you.

Deanicus

They are saying that I was not doing the new role officially and was still technically doing my old role

As such the old role is being made redundant and I have the opportunity to apply for the new role but by doing so I think they are framing it as me voluntarily leaving the old role and getting the new one. I think that is how they are getting around it. I could press the point but then they could just refuse to consider my application for the new role and make me redundant anyway. Then they could get punitive and only offer statutory in that case

I found out on Friday and have been going back and forth since. They are looking for an answer today. I was ready to do it this morning but I realised the whole probationary thing this morning and what that could mean and asked them about it. Now I am not sure what to do

Bear in mind I only got the final redundancy package on Monday so would you think this is a reasonable enough time to consider the options?

If I dont get back to them today they said they will start progressing external applicants for the new role. I should also mention that the new role was advertised before they ever told me anything.

I know I could take the stance that since I have been doing the new role the last year or so that technically this is my role and hence I am not getting made redundant. I consider this the nuclear option as if I go down this route it will mean burning bridges

Mrs OBumble

No it's not a reasonable timeframe.

Tell them that you believe you need to take legal advice before committing to the new role.

That said, how easy to you think it will be to get a new job elsewhere? If difficult, then bypassing the redundancy and treating the probation as a six month job-hunting window may be a better option.

Deanicus

I talked to HR this afternoon and I misread the situation

Basically I would be under standard performance management, not probation. As with any job if I am not doing a good enough job I could be let go

I'm still a little miffed about having to apply for the role and not have a redeployment situation but from my reading of threads here and other places, this seems to be a standard enough practice

seamus

Yeah, it's relatively standard. In effect the company doesn't value your work as highly as you do, and they reckon that someone they got in from outside would do it cheaper. Hence the lower salary.

As has been clarified to you by HR, since your years of service must carry through you cannot be just "let go" at the end of your probationary period. The unfair dismissals act still applies. In general what happens when someone is moved to a new role and fails probation is that the company either sends them back to their old role or begins a PIP/disciplinary process.

It's far thornier though than usual - since the company selected you for the role (you didn't select yourself), they would have to prove they did everything they could to help you succeed, including training courses and mentors to work you through whatever difficulties you may have been having. For a standard probationary dismissal they don't have to do that.

In all honesty I would go back to them and tell them you are interested in applying for the new role but you're not prepared to take a salary drop. They might come back and say the salary is the salary, or they might say if it's negotiable. Remember that you can apply for the other role and even if you succeed you don't have to accept it. If the contract they offer isn't satisfactory you don't have to sign it and they can't fire you from your current role. They would still have to up the offer for the new role or make you redundant.

However, that all depends on your appetite to get into that messing. Just taking the redundancy might be a half-decent option since you're entitled to a minimum of 19 weeks. The first €10k is tax free and then you can do a one-time additional tax free €10k.

What the company are doing is a very cynical way to reduce your salary and indicates that they don't respect you or the work that you do. If you feel that you could secure work elsewhere in the amount of time that a redundancy payment would give you, I'd go for that option.

Deanicus

Thanks seamus. I feel much better that I will be covered under unfair dismissals. As you said they will need to provide a record of poor performance in order to let me go. Obviously I can dispute that if it were to arise

I already negotiated a higher salary for the role should I be "successful". Still lower than what I am on now but not as bad. If I am not successful then redundancy is on the cards but at least it wasn't my choice. I can live with that

I have looked at all the options but it came at a bad time where I am kinda between career paths. My old role has little to do with the one I am doing now. I just used some extra skills to carve this one out. I have experience in this area now but no formal courses or education so I am a little worried about getting a job elsewhere. I think I could but I have to consider my family and I am not sure if the risk is worth it.

My plan until this morning was to go with the new role and use the next year or so to study and get that training and upskill officially. I would be much more confident then. After working here for that long I considered I might be a lifer but after this I think once I am in a good position I will look elsewhere

The whole thing is a kick in the face but it will be a means to an end

spaceHopper

If you have to apply for the new role I'd do my cv and see what elae is out there also talk to citizens information some of what you are saying sounds iffie tome. For example they have to show that making you redundant was the only way if you have been doing role b in dep a and they have the same role in dep b they may be obliged to offer it to you. Soend a few hundred and see a good solicitor to get the advice also if any body else has been made redundant before you should get the same terms