A friend of mine works for a local authority as one of several cashiers of equal rank. If the authority decides that they have more cashiers than they need, what criteria are used to decide which individuals are retained and which ones are made rendundant?
Spin a dice. No one can claim that's unfair.
If it's a local authority and your friend is white and straight, he might as well start filling out the Jobseeker forms now.
Its not what you know - its who you know.
What ought to happen is either random selection or "last in, first out". What often happens in reality is "this is our chance to get rid of the ones we want to sack, but can't".
Mark
What usually happens is ALL the workers are laid of, then they advertise their jobs which have slightly different roles & terms of employment from previous & ask them to reapply. This way no laws are broken & they get rid of the rubbish.
Union rep goes first.
WM
If you are unionised your union will negotiate a "fair" scheme with your employer.
Though it has to be said, they usually aren't very good at getting the deal that their members want and agree to whatever is easiest.
tim
Usually the basic reason for redundancies is the need to cut costs, so redundancy usually targets older workers first, since most salaries and wages are related to age, and all things being equal younger workers are cheaper to employ.
Yes, but by the time redundancies are being considered cashflow is usually a major concern. Making a long-time employee redundant means a large lump payout.
And what's wrong with that? It's what I would do.
It's what I'd do, too. But it's not strictly legal, so needs to be employed with care.
Mark
An employer can use pretty much any criterion he wants providing it can be demonstrated that it is fair and non-discriminatory. It could for example be last-in first-out, or it could be based on skills assessed by a points system.
I am sure a local authority will be capable of ticking all the legal boxes, so even if you are REALLY being sacked becaue your boss does not like your face, you will be shown to have a lower score than your colleagues according to some formula agreed by a committe and there will not be a lot you can do about it.
IANAL, but speak from experience ;) At the wrong end I mean.
That would, of course, be illegal.
It would also be false, since redundancy payments are usually related to current salary, so those on lowest salaries are usually the cheapest to get rid of.
Or any of the dumb names folk write in these columns with you might be lucky
But if that's the case a justification could easily be found that was legal
At the time they leave, correct. But a company in such a position once the decision is made typically bites the bullet, wanting to make one justification to the shareholders / bank and to be in a better position to make profits in the next and subsequent accounting periods.
BTDTGTTS
Derek
They would need to spin at least two dice.
Or more usually they retain the staff that are so desperate for a job they want to work for anyone regardless of their employment policy, terms and conditions. The ones with a clue will leave. Usually the company will fail when the fuckwits in management realise that all the talent is now working for their competitor down the road.
If less than 100 people are affected they have to give 30 days notice that jobs are at risk, and carry out meaningful consultation with the recognised union / staff in that period. (if its more than 100 people at risk then its 90 days consultation). The aim of the consultation is to save jobs / redeploy staff where possible.
The easiest way out of responsibility for the managers is to seek volunteers. However, usually the staff most able to get other jobs (ie the better ones) will exit.
Otherwise, for compulsory redundancies, typically they will draw up a "competency & skills matrix", taking account of sick leave, unspent disciplinary cases, annual performance review results, timekeeping, accuracy and standards of work etc. These criteria can be applied to all and this way the selection can be shown to be evidence based and fair.
They have to take special care not to discriminate, and that now includes on the grounds of age, and especial care has to be taken if they select the union rep.
If it were a private company, and not a local authority, then redundancy payments are allocated as a one-off to the current financial year, are capital expenses and so tax deductable, show the directors are really focused and not afraid to make the tough decisions, and redundancies usually boost the share price: So it's "Trebles all round"! ie the cost is not the bar that everyday common sense might imply it is.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.