unfair selection for redundancy?

foxy_j

Hi all,

I'll try and keep this as short as possible. Here's some background to the situation I posted about bout 1.5 years ago. It's the same job. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057829187

So I was called in yesterday and told my role would be made redundant and they are offering 5 weeks redundancy. I am 6 weeks short of being there two years to be entitled it but they are still offering it. (don't think they know this however)

So basically I am on a 3 day week and I do accounts/registrations so I assist a full time person who does registrations and a part time person who does accounts ( we both do a 3 day week with opposite days and one day overlap) but the accounts person also does more of the accounts like quarterly returns etc that I'm not qualified for.

The part time accounts person was hired after me but I'm not qualified to do some aspects of her role so she has been kept on instead of myself.

Now the reason for the redundancy is it had gotten quieter in the office in the last couple of months, resgistrations down etc however it usually picks up in the autumn so think it's a bit premature.

Also the full time person who does registrations is going on mat leave in a month. They advertised her replacement at the start of the summer but the person only started the role 3 weeks ago.

It seems they could have done a better job at maybe hiring that person part time and sharing the workload or else figure out some way to fairly not make me redundant?

It's a small office so If I am let go the full time person will be there on their own probably 1 or 2 days a week. I don't think that either of them will be happy as between them they'll have to absorb my work and harder for cover for holidays, appointments etc


What do you think? thanks

Sonny noggs

So it was between you (a part timer) and another part timer who was hired after you?

You can’t do the other part timers role as you are not qualified for some aspects of that role. Is he / she qualified to do all aspects of your role?

If the remaining 2 aren’t happy after the team is cut then they will stay looking for new jobs...not really your concern.

foxy_j

Sonny noggs wrote: »

So it was between you (a part timer) and another part timer who was hired after you?

You can’t do the other part timers role as you are not qualified for some aspects of that role. Is he / she qualified to do all aspects of your role?

If the remaining 2 aren’t happy after the team is cut then they will stay looking for new jobs...not really your concern.

Yes and I forgot to say he said also with a intern in college that comes in the summers aswell there's not enough work. Should have said surely I come above theM.

The part time accounts person can do the acccounts aspect but not the registrations etc side but that isn't too hard to learn as it's more admin stuff and the new guy who's taking up the mat contract is being trained in on it. He's only out of college a couple years and has no experience in it.

She'll absorb my accounts work and he'll have to absorb the registrations/admin side i'd imagine.

He said they don't know about the situation so in two minds to tell them as i'd say they may complain. Thinks he's hoping I accept the redundancy and he'll tell them after the fact and nothing they can do then

Sonny noggs

I don’t know what is involved in you becoming qualified to do the other part timers role - time, cost, study, exams or whether you even want to acquire that qualification, but I think the extra qualification effectively means you have different roles, so the length of service is not really relevant, as the role is being made redundant, not the person.

The situation sounds complicated with the maternity and intern added to the mix, so consider talking to an employment law specialist if you aren’t happy about it.

I was made redundant at the end of 2017, I was a bit shocked initially, and annoyed (even though I had been hoping for redundancy for at least a year) but it worked out in the end. So this may be an opportunity to get a better paid job etc.

Looks like the company is experiencing a downturn. Will it pick up this Autumn ? Management might have an idea of something coming down the tracks.

But, I don't see it as unfair selection. The intern and you are not doing the same job. Would you stay and take the intern role? No.

At least they are giving you 5 weeks which seems they wouldn't have to. If you had not have been let go for another two weeks you might have been entitled to 3 weeks wages. The 5 weeks wages should be tax free.

_Brian

foxy_j wrote: »

Hi all,

I'll try and keep this as short as possible. Here's some background to the situation I posted about bout 1.5 years ago. It's the same job. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057829187

So I was called in yesterday and told my role would be made redundant and they are offering 5 weeks redundancy. I am 6 weeks short of being there two years to be entitled it but they are still offering it. (don't think they know this however)

So basically I am on a 3 day week and I do accounts/registrations so I assist a full time person who does registrations and a part time person who does accounts ( we both do a 3 day week with opposite days and one day overlap) but the accounts person also does more of the accounts like quarterly returns etc that I'm not qualified for.

The part time accounts person was hired after me but I'm not qualified to do some aspects of her role so she has been kept on instead of myself.

Now the reason for the redundancy is it had gotten quieter in the office in the last couple of months, resgistrations down etc however it usually picks up in the autumn so think it's a bit premature.

Also the full time person who does registrations is going on mat leave in a month. They advertised her replacement at the start of the summer but the person only started the role 3 weeks ago.

It seems they could have done a better job at maybe hiring that person part time and sharing the workload or else figure out some way to fairly not make me redundant?

It's a small office so If I am let go the full time person will be there on their own probably 1 or 2 days a week. I don't think that either of them will be happy as between them they'll have to absorb my work and harder for cover for holidays, appointments etc


What do you think? thanks

Process sounds fine.
Doesn’t matter that the other person was hired after you as they obviously made the selection based on qualifications and you fell out.

Maybe that was intentional to get you particularly out for some reason or maybe that was just the business decision they made.

Count yourself lucky your getting the package and move on hopefully with a good reference.

qwerty13

Can’t disagree with previous post. You dont have the qualifications to fulfil the role. The company are actually being quite generous to you.

foxy_j

Hey,

Thanks all for the advice. I spoke to my employer about the possibility of reduced days/hours for now and see if things pick up. He said he’d speak to higher ups. He said in the meantime he’s still send on an agreement as it was already in the works and see what I think. I received it but it no where mentions redundancy and the amount is taxable. It’s a mutual settlement agreement which includes I have to get legal advice and have that person sign it to ensure it’s binding. He’s gone on holidays til mid next week but the proposed termination date is late next week.

I am going to some legal advice as my mother works in HR and said it’s not good. It’s saying we are both agreeing to this and could leave me open to not being able to claim JSA/JSB for 9 weeks? This would leave them open to be able rehire in my position and it looks like they haven’t gone through any redundancy procedures. Just bypassed it and offered me this in the hopes I’d just leave. I’m a permanent employee so they can’t dismiss unless they have a genuine reason. It seems a bitt iffy to me. Side note the day after he called me in an told me an email came in re a salary increase my boss was due in last 2 years but didn’t receive it and now agreed for it to be implemented immediately. If money is an issue then it doesn’t look good if they are letting me go.

foxy_j

foxy_j wrote: »

Hey,

Thanks all for the advice. I spoke to my employer about the possibility of reduced days/hours for now and see if things pick up. He said he’d speak to higher ups. He said in the meantime he’s still send on an agreement as it was already in the works and see what I think. I received it but it no where mentions redundancy and the amount is taxable. It’s a mutual settlement agreement which includes I have to get legal advice and have that person sign it to ensure it’s binding. He’s gone on holidays til mid next week but the proposed termination date is late next week.

I am going to some legal advice as my mother works in HR and said it’s not good. It’s saying we are both agreeing to this and could leave me open to not being able to claim JSA/JSB for 9 weeks? This would leave them open to be able rehire in my position and it looks like they haven’t gone through any redundancy procedures. Just bypassed it and offered me this in the hopes I’d just leave. I’m a permanent employee so they can’t dismiss unless they have a genuine reason. It seems a bitt iffy to me. Side note the day after he called me in an told me an email came in re a salary increase my boss was due in last 2 years but didn’t receive it and now agreed for it to be implemented immediately. If money is an issue then it doesn’t look good if they are letting me go.

It does look like they are trying to exit you, possibly due to performance issues. It seems they are willing to pay you 5 weeks to exit you.

And, if it was redundancy it would not be taxed.

Your mum is correct, if you sign that you agree to leave you may not get social welfare for 9 weeks.

As you know they can exit you through other means - as long as they follow the rules - and you'd probably not get the 5 weeks.

Who's paying for the legal advice, you ? Not going to be cheap.

Mrs OBumble

Would you rather they put you through an onerous Performance Improvement Process?

It sounds like there's a clear performance issue, or at least a major face-doesn't-fit issue - and that you don't have the self-awareness to realise this. Which makes me think that the issue will not be able to be fixed.

Your options are an agreed settlement (you leave with some dignity, get some cash - and you should also get an agreement that you will have an excellent reference from them) - or that they manage you out slowly and painfully over some months. The second option includes you being fired at the end, and not getting a reference.

I know which I'd take.

_Brian

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Would you rather they put you through an onerous Performance Improvement Process?

It sounds like there's a clear performance issue, or at least a major face-doesn't-fit issue - and that you don't have the self-awareness to realise this. Which makes me think that the issue will not be able to be fixed.

Your options are an agreed settlement (you leave with some dignity, get some cash - and you should also get an agreement that you will have an excellent reference from them) - or that they manage you out slowly and painfully over some months. The second option includes you being fired at the end, and not getting a reference.

I know which I'd take.

Spot on as ever.

foxy_j

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Would you rather they put you through an onerous Performance Improvement Process?

It sounds like there's a clear performance issue, or at least a major face-doesn't-fit issue - and that you don't have the self-awareness to realise this. Which makes me think that the issue will not be able to be fixed.

Your options are an agreed settlement (you leave with some dignity, get some cash - and you should also get an agreement that you will have an excellent reference from them) - or that they manage you out slowly and painfully over some months. The second option includes you being fired at the end, and not getting a reference.

I know which I'd take.

I think that reply is a bit presumptious about me. Maybe I should have given more background. I linked in my first post a previous post that gave some of it.

I don't think its work performance as I have never been given any indication or it was never mentioned to me that my work was in any way not good enough. Never had any performance reviews only asking how I was getting on but no negative feedback. He even mentioned in the first chat about my job not being required anymore that it was nothing to do with my work.


Same for face to fit, I think I am self aware and I am a very personable person. Get on well with my colleagues. Everyone was invited to my wedding a few months ago and two of the girls came to the full day. One of the girls was great helping me with advice with the planning a bit aswell.


I do think they prefer one person in my role instead of sharing it with the other accounts person. In my previous post I mention they created the job share for my previous colleague. I also think another part of it is they don't like having staff permanent. I am the only permanent employee, I pushed for a permanent contract after my probation. As there was a misunderstanding when I started over what was being offered; a 1 or 2 yr contract vs permanent. So I made sure I got it. My boss even said at the time when we were negotiating it that they didn't want staff there for years and years like there was previously and harder to let go.

They were very busy when I started and needed me so I think that's why they agreed to permanent. My self and another girl cleaned up the accounts as it was a mess and now its done they probably feel they can do without me and save on the decent salary they were paying me. As I'm just shy of the 2 year mark aswell.


The new contract guy covering maternity is being paid less also and they won't be paying a pension contribution for him etc.


I also think they got a scare with the other girl going on maternity. They never had anyone on maternity before. I am just recently married and I think they are thinking I could be next to be out on maternity. There was all women in the office (bar my boss) up til now. The new person covering the maternity is male. Obviously can't prove any of that of course.