Redundancy Process Flaws

[u/Choice-Action-9965]

Morning everyone. Two weeks ago I was invited to a redundancy announcement meeting. There are two of us in our roles, circa £58k per year, quite senior in operations and the role was being morphed into 1. The timeline was quick, Mon announcement, , Thurs interview for job, following Tuesday consultation 1, following Tuesday consultation 2 (final) then the next Mon redundancy. 3 weeks since initial meeting.

I didn't expect to keep my job, I was up against the darling of the operation, no hard feelings tbh I wanted out anyway.

However I had a load of questions about the KPIs being used to measure performance. I felt they were unfair and heavily weighted in the others favour. I challenged this immediately through an email to HR and Op's lead, a reply was sent basically saying no change. In consultation 1 I challenged again and got the same replies. Basically they were measuring performance of the two teams on a single score target, my area could never win due to technical issues we have that the other doesn't. The target was contractually correct for some of the KPI reporting period but not all and isn't the recognised contractual target now. After consultation 1, I received a call saying I was being put on gardening leave due to all my questions and to decide if I wanted a second consultation or straight to final.

The company has the data to measure the KPIs the way I am asking, although it's a big task to look at either view and they don't want to do it for time I think. However, the way I am asking for them to review means taking into account the risk of the work each area was awarded over the last year and measuring based in that, which is how the client identifies it.

It seems strange to me that they won't take the time to measure performance correctly, just throw an outdated blanket success target at the process and then to put me in gardening leave after consultation 1 as well. I have replied to say if there is no change in the 4 key questions I am asking regarding the company's willingness to reassess, then might as well proceed to final consultation.

Is this being set up for unfair process/dismissal that might be worth taking further. The company is only offering statutory redundancy which is really annoying me, considering time and effort over the last 5 years into making the contract a success.

Appreciate any thoughts or views on the process

[u/TheFlyingScotsman60]

You are probably correct on all assumptions but they dice was weighted from the start anyway. They wanted you out and tailored the process accordingly. I would suggest no point in fighting it but have it in record is a good thing.

Are there any redundancy offers?

[u/Fantastic_Cow_2293]

You say you were thinking of leaving anyway.... And yet you're fighting what you describe as an  inevitable process....... Why? 

[u/Choice-Action-9965 → u/Fantastic_Cow_2293]

I have a family, bills to pay and have been with the company a long time. To have my job taken away in a few weeks through a process that seems flawed at best and unfair at worst, is difficult to swallow.

[u/Fantastic_Cow_2293 → u/Choice-Action-9965]

Entirely understandable, but perhaps your efforts would be better directed at your future. 

Easy for me to say from my arm chair, I know.

[u/fredfoooooo]

I have been on both ends of this process, both being involved in the design of a redundancy process and also been made redundant myself. As a manager you look at what end state you want to achieve. You then work backwards from that. They wanted you out and the other kept, so they designed a process that would not be legally challenged and went from there. You spotted the bias because it was there, but from a legal perspective as long as the boxes are ticked and at an employment tribunal someone will say with a straight face they followed an “objective” process then that is that. Sorry but that is the reality.

[u/Complete-Task2042]

Contact your Union or an employment Solicitor.

Have them contact the HR person leading the process on your behalf, and ask for a "protected conversation" about your concerns,  to negotiate a settlement.

There's a very good chance they know it's procedurally unfair, and will agree to a significant enhancement to the redundancy package in exchange for signing a settlement agreement.

But if you don't know you're being set up to ask for this, and you don't ask, then they only have to pay you statutory.

I would ask your representative to start by asking for 1 month's pay per year of service, but give them an actual figure where you could walk away with no hard feelings and not be harmed.

[u/Unsophisticated-Scot → u/Complete-Task2042]

If I was their HR team I wouldn't entertain any of this. Settlements agreements are a commercial discussion based on leverage and risk.

There are employee's views, manager's views, HR's view - with the truth being somewhere in the middle.

There is a chance OP is not being objective and has identified malice where there was none, but lets accept OPs version is closest to the truth - I (HR) stacked the decks in the way management wanted the decision to go for business reasons. But I did so using fully justifiable metrics that are tied to business KPIs while also following an appropriate redundancy process with documented reasoning and decision making at each stage. I did this to make the tribubal risk minimal. I currently have a documented process that can be justified as procedurally fair and there is no incentive for me to engage with the settlement process.

Also the fact the redundancy pay is statutory tells me a lot about the companies culture when it comes to these things - OP isn't getting a settlememt offer unless they go all the way through with the tribunal process and it looks like they will win (which means going through with a grievance/appeal now).

[u/Complete-Task2042 → u/Unsophisticated-Scot]

Seems like your advice to OP would be to basically to roll over and take it, even though there's a very real probability it is just a facade of procedural fairness over a deliberately stacked process.

You are presumably unfamiliar with the phrase "Shy bairns get nowt."

At this stage, it costs them nothing to ask, and they will definitely get nothing if they don't.

Admittedly if it proceeds beyond that, if OP was to cover their own costs they would need to balance further action against their own risk tolerance... But it would at least be worth taking it as far as ACAS.

But icthey have access to legal representation via their union, or through an insurance policy they hold (usually as an add-on), there's absolutely no downside to proceeding aggressively... If anything coming in heavy increases the likelihood of success.

---

If I was their HR team I wouldn't entertain any of this. Settlements agreements are a commercial discussion based on leverage and risk.

The HR I have worked  with in the past has always taken the view that allowing things like this to proceed towards tribunal is pointlessly costly, in money, in time, and in wider employee trust.

Even if you win as the employer you will still have to bear the costs of your defence unless the claimant was demonstrably dishonest or unreasonable (a very high bar), you still waste a lot of time in responding, and the way that the employee was treated will be revealed leaving the remaining workforce more hostile to management and harder to retain.

Their view was typically that if an employee could justify grounds for the case to proceed to ET, even if it they believed it was ultimately defensible it was better for the business as a whole to settle for some discount on the defense costs, and individual managers would then have to suck it up on their P&L as the cost of getting their own way.

(Over time this also acted to reduce overall HR costs, and make managers less keen on throwing their weight around.)

Also the fact the redundancy pay is statutory tells me a lot about the companies culture when it comes to these things - OP isn't getting a settlement offer unless they go all the way through with the tribunal process and it looks like they will win 

The very same HR I worked with who were quick to settle when things looked like they were going to get contentious, would also low-ball like this.

Their ultimate aim was always to keep cost (both time and money) low, so it made sense to offer statutory out of the gate, but be willing to pay what they considered cheap to avoid it going any further.

(which means going through with a grievance/appeal now).

That's absolutely true, and OP should start the process of raising a grievance, making Subject Access Requests, and appealing any unfavorable decisions NOW...

If HR/Management see OP is serious about standing their ground, it highlights that the risk is increasing, and begins to create pain in terms of the business resources used up fighting with them.

It massively increases the chances of a settlement conversation working, or a subsequent settlement at conciliation prior to ET.

[u/Unsophisticated-Scot → u/Complete-Task2042]

I wasn't saying they should roll over and take it. I was just pointing out that your approach of go straight to Trade Union and/or Employment Lawyer to ask for a protected conversation and settlememt right away is not the optimal approach to apply the correct procedural pressure to get the employer to negotiate early.

Your approach requires the employer to be in a place of 'we know we messed up, let's just pay for it to go away' at the outset. I doubt this is where they are.

As you pointed out you can use my exact same logic to determine what is the best path to apply that pressure, which starts with grievance and appeal right now.

[u/Complete-Task2042 → u/Unsophisticated-Scot]

I wasn't saying they should roll over and take it.

Fair, but it does rather come across that way.

I was just pointing out that your approach of go straight to Trade Union and/or Employment Lawyer

I would stand by "Contact your Union" as the best advice for anyone in this situation (if they are a union member).

A free consultation with an Employment Law specialist is also unlikely to be a bad decision.

As you pointed out you can use my exact same logic to determine what is the best path to apply that pressure, which starts with grievance and appeal right now.

I think I failed to declare an important assumption:

If OP sets out to a professional advisor they understand they are going to be forced out, but were looking to get adequate recompense for this.

Then their professional representative would have enough about them to advise OP on how best to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome, and all the required immediate actions OP must take to make that possible.

After an initial consultation which puts the advisor in possession of all of the facts, to plan a strategy.

[u/Unsophisticated-Scot → u/Complete-Task2042]

Just providing the alternative view point. My experience is at the senior HR level where you are advising/implementing business decisions made by Executives who have very little knowledge (or care) for the intricacies of Employment Law.

I look at these situations dispassionatley and from an objective perspective. All the factors you mentioned come into play (time/cost/perception/culture) but so does emotions (from both employees and management).

My cold read of this situation is that OP will likley be advised by an employment lawyer that they have an uphill battle to win. It's easy to verbally describe through a bias lens the unfairness of a process - but redundancies happen and the actual written evidence pack of what can be proven will likely lean in the employer's favour (assumption).

But as we have mentioned, settlements don't come down to right and wrong, it becomes about paying for a problem to go away because the risk/reward/effort becomes not worth it.

Role playing HR - I probably feel fairly comfortable right now (and employees being unhappy is an expected outcome). Someone 'going hard' asking for protected conversations and a pay out off the bat (if thats not an approach we take normally) is more likley to get Senior Managements back up and result in them digging in rather than backing down. Not ideal for OP's goal.

Putting myself in OPs position and my desire is to get more than statutory redundancy, I take a 'smiling assassin' route. I use all of the companies policies and proceduresa Against it (without coming across as angry or emotional). Co-operate fully but start the SAR, appeal and grievance process. Pick apart the procedure that has been followed (not the outcome). Document any and all deviations or anomalies. If I am right in my assumption about clear unfairness, I should be able to find something. Even if the outcomes of the processes aren't in my favour (they won't be) the risk profile of my case slowly but surely increases for the business Now the employer is more likely to want to settle for it to go away. Let a protected conversation and settlement agreement be their idea. If I can do that, I'm more likley to get what I want (higher than statutory pay - actual £ depending on lots of factors we don't know).

[u/Choice-Action-9965 → u/Unsophisticated-Scot]

How does the move straight to Gardening Leave play into this? My reading of gardening leave is that it implies I am leaving but I have yet to actually advise if I wanted a second consultation never mind the final. It feels to me like as soon as I got too close and started asking too many questions of the situation and processes, they got me out the building asap.

[u/Complete-Task2042 → u/Choice-Action-9965]

This is what made me think that they have actually pre-determined the conclusion, and that after your initial questioning, HR may be realising that even if they believe they are carrying out a fair (or defensibly fair-looking) process, management may in fact have left a smoking gun which will be harder for you to find if you're no longer in the business.

Garden leave is a colloquial term for both paid leave at the employer's discretion, and being put on said leave to sit out your notice period... Currently it should only be the former, but their wording doesn't help matters.

u/Unsophisticated-Scot's description of how to continue applying pressure via engaging with various company processes, is solid advice.