[Adrenochrome]

Just had one of my mates on the phone with seemingly not good news

It looks as if the company he works for is about to undergo a restructure of the department he works in.

Already, a new position higher than his has been filled without any opportunity given to people like him who would naturally be 'next in line'.

As if thats not bad enough, there is talk of a re-structure but no information is being passed on making people like my mate quite nervous about what's happening.

Out of interest, If you are asked to carry out a different role within the same department, with a different job description, what are the options available? What can the company ask you to do and what rights does my mate as an employee have?

[Ian J]

The employment expert is the moderator named after a deoderant

[Flibblebot]

IANAL (or an HRM), but I believe that if his current role is no longer required in the company then he will be put at risk of redundancy and enter a consultation period with the company. During this time he can, if he wants, apply for other positions within the company, which should follow the normal recruitment process.
It depends on how different the new position is - employemt law is full of the word "reasonable", with no strict definition of the word

[eviljohn2]

Realistically, the only ways that a company can get rid of you these days are through gross misconduct or redundancy (unfortunately affecting my Dad at the moment for the second time in 5 years n: ).

Gross misconduct isn't relevant here.

Originally Posted by Adrenochrome

Out of interest, If you are asked to carry out a different role within the same department, with a different job description, what are the options available? What can the company ask you to do and what rights does my mate as an employee have?

If the company manages to find a position which they could reasonably expect you to have the skills to fulfil and without an unreasonable pay drop then naturally you're not redundant. If people still want to leave in circumstances like this then the only options are asking for voluntary redundancy or resigning.

Rarely good news I'm afraid mate.

Originally Posted by Flibblebot

IANAL (or an HRM), but I believe that if his current role is no longer required in the company then he will be put at risk of redundancy and enter a consultation period with the company. During this time he can, if he wants, apply for other positions within the company, which should follow the normal recruitment process.
It depends on how different the new position is - employemt law is full of the word "reasonable", with no strict definition of the word

Spot on. I have been through this process myself not so long ago. However I believe the consultation process is only triggered if more than a certain percentage of the workforce is affected.

It may be worth looking at how easy it is for him to get another job, how much they would actually pay for redundancy, and if there was a pay cut involved moving to another role. The company has no legal obligation to make an alternative job role the same salary.

The difficulty is that if he does move to another role and either doesn't like it and decides to leave, or for another reason it doesn't work out, then he may have forfeited any redundancy entitlement by accepting the move to another position.

Taking a light-hearted view of a difficult subject it can be summed up in a 'Take your pick' approach : Take the money and run, or open the box

[unique]

Originally Posted by Adrenochrome

Just had one of my mates on the phone with seemingly not good news

It looks as if the company he works for is about to undergo a restructure of the department he works in.

Already, a new position higher than his has been filled without any opportunity given to people like him who would naturally be 'next in line'.

As if thats not bad enough, there is talk of a re-structure but no information is being passed on making people like my mate quite nervous about what's happening.

Out of interest, If you are asked to carry out a different role within the same department, with a different job description, what are the options available? What can the company ask you to do and what rights does my mate as an employee have?

http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/redundancy/consult-pl833a.htm

have a look at that, and other stuff on the dti website

your employer can ask you to change jobs/job title/duties, but you have no obligation to accept

if the employee doesn't want to accept the new post, the normal procedure would be to make the old post redundant, and create and advertist the new post. it would be up to the individual to apply for the new post if they wished. if they didn't want that, then they would be made redundant, and be entitled to the redundancy package. the company may only be required to pay the statutory minimum redundancy pay -

http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/redundancy/payments-pl808

i get the impression that as the question has been asked here, that it's a smallish size company, and he is not a union member, and does not have a union rep to ask these questions. without a union rep dealing with consultation and redundancy issues, the statutory minimum payments may be more likely

regarding filling the position higher than him prior to a reshuffle of the department, there is nothing much stopping the company from doing this.

one thing to bear in mind, at the moment the "reshuffle" seems to be rumour from the information provided, with nothing official being said. you never know, but it might not be as bad as it seems, there may not be anymore changes, at least not for the worst

if your friend has a union rep, its a good idea they speak to them, or a similar person such as line manager who can ask the appropriate questions and get an official answer

[davisneil]

coincidentally, i have received news today of restructuring at my place of work (possibly the same place?) and Im not comfortable because of the uncertainty

Basically weve just been told 'all the job positions are going to be reassessed and restructured, some positions may disappear, we'll let u know.'

Not great for the new year eh?

It's not even the fact that there are job losses, its not knowing, and also the short notice and great timing, just after christmas.

[Knyght_byte]

some firms try and get away with simply renaming the job, but if over a certain percentage of the tasks that job is required to do changed then they can get rid of you no problem, they have to follow certain redundancy laws, and may even have a package better anyhow (my firm does if you have been there more than 2 years).......they obviously cant refuse you taking a shot at the new job, but more than likely you wont cut the mustard, altho you'll be surprised, its worth applying as sometimes you are one of the ones they do want to keep on, but normally you'll get a few hints from a manager above you such as 'so, you sent in your CV yet, you never know, wink wink'....lol

my firm are eager to get rid of some of the old timers there like me (not by age tho, but the fact when we started the job wasnt quite the same) but i keep on holding on, and because when they changed the criteria for new staff they forgot to end the job that it was in a full redundancy, so now the only way they get rid of me and a few others is if we decide to quit, or we fall behind on the tasks, and then if the latter happens they still have to pay us redundancy due to our contracts......

i hope those in this thread or those they know end up getting something good out of whats going on at your workplaces, whether it be another job there or at least a tidy sum for redundancy.......i know what its like looking around for jobs, especially in my case when i'm limited because of a health problem, it can take a while sometimes.....

[unique]

Originally Posted by davisneil

coincidentally, i have received news today of restructuring at my place of work (possibly the same place?) and Im not comfortable because of the uncertainty

Basically weve just been told 'all the job positions are going to be reassessed and restructured, some positions may disappear, we'll let u know.'

Not great for the new year eh?

It's not even the fact that there are job losses, its not knowing, and also the short notice and great timing, just after christmas.

you have to look at things with an open mind and positively. i don't know if you like your job or not, but your job could get better after restructuring, thats the point of restructuring - to make things better and more efficient. if you are doing a good job, they will prolly want you to stay, if your not, then your prolly better off getting another job elsewhere

even if they do make you redundant, and even if you dont get much in redundancy pay, you might end up getting a better job elsewhere

sometimes people become complaincent and bored in thier jobs, and it takes someone to push them out the door to give them the kick up the ass and push them towards finding a better, more enjoyable and more rewarding job. if you hate your job and your not doing a good job, you might end up better off. on the other hand if your doing a good job and you like your job, you may end up better off in the company your in

[/END OF POSITIVE MESSAGE CRAP]

[davisneil]

i love the job i do and im happy here. i have no issue at all, and the company have no issues with my performance. main worry is that i was the last one to be recruited in my team...last in first out kinda thing, also i would not be entitled to redundancy pay due to length of service, so logically if they needed to lay one of us off, it would probably be me.

[unique]

Originally Posted by davisneil

i love the job i do and im happy here. i have no issue at all, and the company have no issues with my performance. main worry is that i was the last one to be recruited in my team...last in first out kinda thing, also i would not be entitled to redundancy pay due to length of service, so logically if they needed to lay one of us off, it would probably be me.

hmmm, last one in, first out is one way of handling the situation, but not necesarily the one they will choose. a more acceptable form of handling these situations is to do an assessment of skills, etc and make redundancies based on that. the company may also send out a request for voluntary redundancies and some may accept it.

if your doing a good job and there are no issues with your performance, then you probably have a good chance of being kept on

whilst "positions may dissapear" is usually a hint at redundancies, sometimes the restructuring may just mean that instead of you doing taks 10-15 out the book, you will be doing 12-17 instead - just slightly different stuff.

if restructuring in that way, if handled correctly, and a number of posts are being changed, then if you are good and keen you may get one of the new posts instead of someone thats been there longer but is less keen to change.

this is the time that companies tend to shed the dead skin and folks who can be a bit of a pain in the arse, and the newer staff jump ahead, sometimes with brand new staff filling some of the new positions

it might not be all that bad, but even if your job goes, there are still plenty of jobs going around these days, unemployment is prettymuch at an all time low in the uk. if you want a job, you can get one

anyways, i hope it works out in your current post

[Londondecca]

Originally Posted by eviljohn2

Realistically, the only ways that a company can get rid of you these days are through gross misconduct or redundancy

There are 5 potentially fair reasons for dismissal

1. Capability (or qualifications)
2. Conduct
3. Redundancy
4. Prohibition under a statutory provision
5. Some other substantial reason (SOSR)

Have a look at the CIPD site for basic information on redundancy. http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/...tm?IsSrchRes=1

I have been involved in a lot of restructuring over the years and it is understandable that many fear the worst so it is important to try and get as many facts as possible. Whilst restructuring can mean redundancies it is not automatic or inevitable. Ask your management/HR/Union for whatever information is available.

Davisneil, there are many ways of selecting people for redundancy, last in first out' is only one. Ask for a copy of the redundancy procedure and this should explain the process (assuming they have a procedure)

[lynx]

Originally Posted by Ian J

The employment expert is the moderator named after a deoderant

Unfortunately, Ians' praise is a little unwarranted as this is an area that i have little experience of and my limited knowledge lies elsewhere.

Adrenochrome, does your mate work for a large organisation or a smaller employer? Is there trade union recognition within the company (i'm guessing not)? The up-shot is, if the employer is small and there isn't strong union organisation his options may be limited. Good practice would suggest the employees should have been consulted about this, especially if change is going to have an impact on the job structure.

Since i'm unaware of the companies policies and procedures to manage this sort of event it would'nt be appropriate to offer advice, however i would suggest it may be in his interest to seek qualified opinion on how to progress as this could not only affect his earning capacity but also his pension entitlement as well.

I hope it works out for him as this can be very stressfull to deal with.

[Nick_UK]

The bottom line is that whether the law is on your side or not, legal action is expensive, and unless the job was bringing in shedloads of money, then legal action would not be worth it (assuming that you did have a case to start with).

It's only after I started working for myself (after nearly 40 years of working for someone else) that I woke up to just how insecure employment is (even if you have held a job for a long time). A bit ironic really, because friends kept telling me that working for yourself was very risky. I think security of employment is a myth which is spread by employers to keep employees where they want them, and working for peanuts.

[Flibblebot]

Originally Posted by Nick_UK

The bottom line is that whether the law is on your side or not, legal action is expensive, and unless the job was bringing in shedloads of money, then legal action would not be worth it (assuming that you did have a case to start with).

Actually taking your employer to tribunal is not that expensive. The last company I worked for was forever being taken to tribunal by some of its lowest paid employees, so it can't be that expensive. The problem (from a company's perspective) is that if a case goes to full tribunal, the results inevitably end up in the favour of the employee, so it's got to the stage where most companies prefer to settle rather than fight. This country is getting as litigious as the US, and it's costing our companies money every year

[unique]

Originally Posted by Nick_UK

The bottom line is that whether the law is on your side or not, legal action is expensive, and unless the job was bringing in shedloads of money, then legal action would not be worth it (assuming that you did have a case to start with).

It's only after I started working for myself (after nearly 40 years of working for someone else) that I woke up to just how insecure employment is (even if you have held a job for a long time). A bit ironic really, because friends kept telling me that working for yourself was very risky. I think security of employment is a myth which is spread by employers to keep employees where they want them, and working for peanuts.

http://www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk/default.asp

have a look at that. i don't think it costs anything to start a employment tribunal, this isn't like the americanised system of suiing your employer. the complaint usually goes to ACAS, who have a look at the merits of the case, and will perhaps contact the employer for thier side of the story, if it's deemed the employer is in the wrong, ACAS will try and get the employer to resolve the issue before a tribunal is started. you don't need a lawyer or representative

your employer needs to do something fairly clearly wrong in order for you to win an employment tribunal. if they have acted reasonably fairly according to DTI guidelines, you probably won't go very far. if your employer has acted fairly reasonably, you wouldn't normally feel that inclined to raise a complaint or try and start a tribunal, and ACAS would probably advise you the same

these days most employers will try and follow reasonably steps to ensure they don't get tribunals, however smaller companies can be ignorant of the law and do things wrongly and unfairly, and there are cases where employers will take the risk of tribunals in order to avoid making large redundancy payments to a number of staff (i've witnessed this first hand - the company had a lot of long term staff who would have been due large union backed redundancy payments and would have happily taken them, bankrupting the company and leaving them with no skilled workers, and in almost impossible position to find or train anyone to carry on the business normally, so they called thier bluff on staff, and the cost of settling the tribunals to the few who dared challenge them was considerably less than had they done things correctly, as most redundancy tribunals don't award "damages", only the payments you would normally have been due if things were done correctly)

however that situation doesn't occur very often. you still don't even know if you are going to be made redundant. in order to sweeten things, they might shed say 10% of jobs, but increase salaries for those with new posts by 5%, still saving them money, but shedding under acheivers, reducing the overall wage bill, and getting the remaining staff to work harder/better and rewarding them a little more. i handled one case where we knew some staff wouldn't be happy in accepting the new posts at another location a bit further away, but the new jobs had a slightly higher pay rate to partially compensate for the relocation to a cheaper to run unit, the savings allowing for the increased payrates. we knew we would loose some staff who didnt want to move, so we had to offer more money so we didnt end up without staff at all. in that pretty big case we didn't have a single tribunal complaint as i checked everything thorougly and handled it by the book. they staff who left got payouts and were far from complaining about it, and the company lost the problem staff in the move, so everyone was happy at the end of the day. still they don't always go nicey nicey

[lynx]

Employments appeals can be far removed from the perception a lay person may hold. They tend to fall (or succeed) purely on points of law and procedure rather than who is right or wrong. The procedure is very rigid and if you are not well versed in the application of appeals, you can easily see what appears to be a strong case collapse. Have a look at some of the appeals for an insight...http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/judge_fr.htm

[stealther]

Originally Posted by Flibblebot

Actually taking your employer to tribunal is not that expensive. The last company I worked for was forever being taken to tribunal by some of its lowest paid employees, so it can't be that expensive. The problem (from a company's perspective) is that if a case goes to full tribunal, the results inevitably end up in the favour of the employee, so it's got to the stage where most companies prefer to settle rather than fight. This country is getting as litigious as the US, and it's costing our companies money every year

Still the companies could always try treating there employees better and thus avoid dispute.

[Londondecca]

I was involved in a restructure a few years ago which involved approximately 100 people, not one was made redundant. Restructuring can be everything from sitting at a different desk to closing factories. So far we have no information that anyone is going to lose their jobs.

One technique which could be used to gain information would be a launch a grievance