HR - Redundancy Query

[road2ruin]

Just wondered whether anyone in the know might be able to offer advice on the following.....

My wife worked in her present company for 5 years before having 12 months off for maternity leave. On her return they agreed a job share where she would work 3 days a week with another person taking the other 2 days. The agreement was that this would be on a probationary period for the first 3 months just to check that the whole process was working.

Having had her review it was agreed in both sides that there were no issues about the pair working together or having a negative impact on the business. However it was also announced as a massive curveball that they were extending the probationary period by a month whilst the new MD decides whether to make the position redundant.

The HR lady made it clear that it would be unfortunate as she is effectively a new employee under this new contract and so if the position was made redundant then so payment would be made given it is basically saying that the probationary period is up and the company have decided not to make it permanent.

This is above my own pay grade so have no advice to offer personally so I thought I'd see if anyone can offer pointers in preperation for potentially bad news.

 

[Rooter]

Hmmm I'm no expert but smells fishy slightly, I would get some proper legal advice.. It's gonna boil down to how the maternity leave was administered I think.

 

[MarkA]

Hmmm I'm no expert but smells fishy slightly, I would get some proper legal advice.. It's gonna boil down to how the maternity leave was administered I think.

I second that - smacks of the company trying to pull a fast one!

 

[Hacker Khan]

Our HR person always says that pregnant and returning mothers are one of the most protected types in employment. So I would get some legal advice as it can't be right that a returning mother is put back on probation and on a new contract when she returns. Pretty sure they are under a legal obligation to find a role for her, often (bit not always) equivalent to the one she had before she left.

Hope it all works out as this sounds very poor behaviour by the employer.

 

[Odvan]

An employer is not permitted to put a permanent member of staff, after changing roles within the same company, on to a probationary period. She is not a new employee if she has had no permanent break in employment whatsoever and maternity leave does not mean she has, as you no doubt know.

Ensure your missus documents all dates/times of past and future meetings and that she makes summary notes of key points, including those present. Advise her to query certain points from said meetings via email as this will act as confirmation that the meetings took place and the notes she has made match the meeting content, assuming she gets a reply. Not getting a reply is even worse.

If you have been told that a decision is being made on redundancy in a months time they should also be outlining what steps they're taking to mitigate this by means of offering other positions within the company.

Sit tight and see what decision the clueless MD/HR bods come up with. If dealt bad news seek advice. On the surface of what you have explained, they haven't a leg to stand on.

I think I'm right, but it isn't my day job so do seek an proper consultation.

Good luck to you and yours.

 

[Hobbit]

An employer is not permitted to put a permanent member of staff, after changing roles within the same company, on to a probationary period. She is not a new employee if she has had no permanent break in employment whatsoever and maternity leave does not mean she has, as you no doubt know.

Ensure your missus documents all dates/times of past and future meetings and that she makes summary notes of key points, including those present. Advise her to query certain points from said meetings via email as this will act as confirmation that the meetings took place and the notes she has made match the meeting content, assuming she gets a reply. Not getting a reply is even worse.

If you have been told that a decision is being made on redundancy in a months time they should also be outlining what steps they're taking to mitigate this by means of offering other positions within the company.

Sit tight and see what decision the clueless MD/HR bods come up with. If dealt bad news seek advice. On the surface of what you have explained, they haven't a leg to stand on.

I think I'm right, but it isn't my day job so do seek an proper consultation.

Good luck to you and yours.

Been there with staff that wanted to change their hours. Odvan has covered most of it. Get everything in writing. Don't acknowledge or accept any points. Ask the company to put every point in an email and send it to your solicitor.

 

[JohnnyDee]

Been there with staff that wanted to change their hours. Odvan has covered most of it. Get everything in writing. Don't acknowledge or accept any points. Ask the company to put every point in an email and send it to your solicitor.

Would agree with this and what Odvan says. Something smells a bit iffy here and get everything recorded.

If there is a more pointless job function within any corporation than HR I have yet to understand just what it is.

 

[Cherry13]

She certainly shouldn't be classed as a new employee as others have said its continuos employment.
The only issue that may arise in terms of a settlement is that her agreement will be based on her new working pattern. So although she should be entitled to five years service it will only be based on 3 days a week salary. Hope that makes sense.

This may differ across different organisations, but this is my experience when dealing with restructures.

 

[williamalex1]

Pay a specialist employment lawyer for advice, it will be worth it in the long run.:thup:
Looks like they're trying to pull a fast one.

 

[SugarPenguin]

I think that the fact your wife has agreed to the new terms could potentially make this legal - especially if she has signed a new contract or job description agreeing to the new terms, as essentially because she is now part time it's classed as another job and part time staff do not have as much "power" as a full time employee

My advice would be like all the others. Document every communication and find out exactly what is in writing. The company are trying to pull a fast one without doubt.

Do do what others have suggested and seek an occupational solicitor. All the best for you and yiur wife - hope it works out

 

[KhalJimbo]

Shouldn't matter really, redundancy pay is calculated on length of service with the employer not length of service in her current position. I've just gone through redundancy and changed positions within that firm two years ago and can say it does not matter. Also you don't get a second probationary period, you can get a trial period in a new role where if things don't won't work out you can go back to your previous one, but certainly not a new probationary one, the two might sound the same but are completely different.

As others said, smacks of something fishy, call a solicitor and ask for advice they'll most likely give you a quick free session over the phone and offer some advice, also, if it does go to redundancy, your wife will need to go to a lawyer anyway to make sure everything was done above board anyway (from my experience).

 

[road2ruin]

Thanks for the replies. Turns out that the situation is slightly different that my initial email. Essentially the 2nd probation period was on the basis that this company hadn't had any job shares before and so wanted to ensure that it worked before agreeing to it 100%. This was agreed to by both my wife and her colleague who she was sharing with. The agreement was that as long as they performed and other parts of the business had no issues then at the end of the 3rd month i.e. today the role would be made permanent.

So yesterday my wife has her review and her line manager says that they are really happy with the way that it has gone and both my wife and her colleague work well together so certainly no issues on the performance front. However, at the end of the meeting, in a very off hand manner she is then informed that the probationary period is now going to be extended through until the end of January. There was no feedback as to why this was and the line manager didn't seem to know. This is very odd given it's a pretty important decision so the way it was handled was very poor. The company has been finding life a little tough recently and although they're not in a major trouble a new MD has recently been installed (last 6 months) to help steer the company through these hard times. We think that she has probably made the decision based on not wanting to make this position permanent whilst everything is up in the air. This means that they can choose to make both redundant without paying a notice period although we would get a basic redundancy package.

Anyway, we went through her new contract and the clause about the probationary period is very clear that it is based purely on the performance of the role being done to the satisfaction of all involved i.e. my wife, her job share and the company. Seeing as they both like working with one another and the company has completed both reviews within the last week with glowing feedback it appears that these conditions have been met. There is nothing in the contract to say that the probationary period can be extended due to the performance of the business as a whole.

Wife has gone into battle today to find out exactly where she stands as it's all very airy fairy at the moment. She wants a full explanation as to why the period has been extended and why it has been handled in such a terrible way. We'll get professional advice dependant on the response gained from the meeting.

 

[Rooter]

OK keep us posted, i would be intrigued to know though how they could get rid of your wife as a new employee when she has worked there 5 years (6 if you include the mat leave) was her maternity leave paid via the company in question? if so she is still 100% an employee, i know its typically only 9 months though, so were the last 3 a sabbatical? did she hand in her notice and terminate her previous contract? this is the major point i would be looking into, Then start to question the actual redundancy. Is the work she and her work share partner doing going to cease or will it be handed to someone else or someone new (full time? maybe cheaper??)

Still lots of unanswered questions, hope all is well at home. Having been through it, i know its the pits and especially at this time of year.

 

[Piece]

They've just given her a new job description if I understand correctly. This 'new employee' status is utter rubbish unless she actual resigned. She should be on different job terms and conditions that amend her current contract. The long and short of it is that companies, both big and small, try it on or are incompetent/inexperienced with maternity employees.

We went through similar several years ago with a well known company that provides telecoms, flights and money services, run by a well-known bearded personality . Our case was more about reducing the hours worked rather than job share. We hired, albeit briefly, the services of a specialist employment lawyer, not just a general solicitor. Having this advice and full documentary evidence of meetings that took place was important to get to satisfactory solution. In the end she left the company as the hours were indeed reduced but the work load hadn't, making it a massively stressful situation all round.

Good luck!

 

[HomerJSimpson]

She certainly shouldn't be classed as a new employee as others have said its continuos employment.
The only issue that may arise in terms of a settlement is that her agreement will be based on her new working pattern. So although she should be entitled to five years service it will only be based on 3 days a week salary. Hope that makes sense.

This may differ across different organisations, but this is my experience when dealing with restructures.

Makes perfect sense. Sounds like the company is pulling a fast one. Get it documented

 

[Odvan]

She certainly shouldn't be classed as a new employee as others have said its continuos employment.
The only issue that may arise in terms of a settlement is that her agreement will be based on her new working pattern. So although she should be entitled to five years service it will only be based on 3 days a week salary. Hope that makes sense.

This may differ across different organisations, but this is my experience when dealing with restructures.

Makes perfect sense. Sounds like the company is pulling a fast one. Get it documented

I don't think that's correct. An employees current working pattern isn't representative of any settlement. These should be based on the average earnings over the course of the employment, excluding any bonuses.

 

[williamalex1]

Is she not a member of a Union ?

 

[Cherry13]

Afraid not, it's the current salary at the time notice is served. Regardless of previous salaries (It may be negotiated if it's an agreed redundancy but unlikely).
A common tactic for organisations who are struggling is to re-negotiate salaries with people so that they can remain in employment longer, however this then reduces what the employee is entitled too. Quite a common tactic even when there is no hope of the company surviving, although illegal in some respects, extremely difficult to prove.

Edit: in respond to odvan sorry.

 

[Odvan]

Afraid not, it's the current salary at the time notice is served. Regardless of previous salaries (It may be negotiated if it's an agreed redundancy but unlikely).
A common tactic for organisations who are struggling is to re-negotiate salaries with people so that they can remain in employment longer, however this then reduces what the employee is entitled too. Quite a common tactic even when there is no hope of the company surviving, although illegal in some respects, extremely difficult to prove.

Edit: in respond to odvan sorry.

So someone works for 35-40hrs p/w for 30 years then go part-time to 15hrs, only to be made redundant 6 months later and you think that a company would only have to pay out based on the part-time hours....

A small company's unorganised and under resourced HR department might think that but any decent employment law firm will tell you the opposite.

 

[Cherry13]

So someone works for 35-40hrs p/w for 30 years then go part-time to 15hrs, only to be made redundant 6 months later and you think that a company would only have to pay out based on the part-time hours....

A small company's unorganised and under resourced HR department might think that but any decent employment law firm will tell you the opposite.

Afraid so. . . If a firm is struggling to stay afloat would it not be reasonable for them to expect employees to reduce salary therefore relieve some of the burden? And there liability of the worst does happen.

It's unfortunate that the employee chose to do that, but it works both ways.

There is some info on the CAB Websire however it won't allow me to paste it in.