question around redundancy

simo28

Hi,
I'm hoping someone can answer a question i have.
My job have announced a series of redundancies and we've been told some will come in my department. Now the way it works here is we have three shifts with 7 people doing the same job in each shift (as in there is 7 jobs in the department so 21 people).
My question is with the redundancies is it the job role or the person they make redundant.
Thanks for any answers.

Eoin

The role, meaning that they might transfer a person in that role to another one. Or if the person is made redundant, they can't hire a replacement with the same job title within 6(?) months. The work might still exist, but it could be shared between other roles.

I'm not sure if I'm answering your question though?

Mrs OBumble

So they're going to have to say either "we only need two shifts" = 7 redundancies or "we only need six X's on shift Y" = one redundancy per shift.

Most likely it's an overall headcount reduction programme, and local managers still have to make the decision about how to run their department on the reduced headcount available to them.

simo28

Eoin wrote: »

The role, meaning that they might transfer a person in that role to another one. Or if the person is made redundant, they can't hire a replacement with the same job title within 6(?) months. The work might still exist, but it could be shared between other roles.

I'm not sure if I'm answering your question though?

Yes you are, in a way. Essentially we all do very different roles with no real crossover between them so I'm struggling to see how they'll let anyone of us go without eleminating an entire shift.
So does the 6 month thing mean that if they let just one go then the others in the same job would have to have their job role renamed or can the job role still exist despite the company making one of the three who do it redundant?
What I'm saying is, is it the job role or the person that is made redundant?

Eoin

Ah, I think I get you now - no, it's not the case that everyone doing that role must be made redundant. Think of it more like a specific position being made redundant, not an entire role.

When they say that a role is made redundant, not a person - I think all that really means is the reason behind letting someone go. It's not supposed to be a punishment or an excuse to let a non-performer go, it's supposed to simply be because the business need for that role is no longer justified. The end result is usually the same - someone is out of a job.

So, they can't immediately hire someone else for that role as then it's clearly not redundant - they've targeted a person, not a role. So what some companies do is change the job title and description just enough, so it makes it look like it's a different role.

Also, it doesn't mean that the duties no longer exist - they can decide that there is no need for a full time person to do the job, and their duties will be shared across other people. My colleague was made redundant a few years ago, so I just had to absorb that workload - it didn't disappear.

So, with 3 shifts of 7 people, do you think they could:
1) Get rid of one specific role from each shift, and train some or all of the other 6 people to do the job?
2) Get rid of an entire shift and change the hours of operation?
3) Get rid of a different role from each shift, and only carry out certain tasks in 2 out of 3 shifts?
4) Move certain tasks to another team altogether?
5) Get rid of a senior position and re-hire for a more junior role with slightly less responsibility?

simo28

Eoin wrote: »

Ah, I think I get you now - no, it's not the case that everyone doing that role must be made redundant. Think of it more like a specific position being made redundant, not an entire role.

When they say that a role is made redundant, not a person - I think all that really means is the reason behind letting someone go. It's not supposed to be a punishment or an excuse to let a non-performer go, it's supposed to simply be because the business need for that role is no longer justified. The end result is usually the same - someone is out of a job.

So, they can't immediately hire someone else for that role as then it's clearly not redundant - they've targeted a person, not a role. So what some companies do is change the job title and description just enough, so it makes it look like it's a different role.

Also, it doesn't mean that the duties no longer exist - they can decide that there is no need for a full time person to do the job, and their duties will be shared across other people. My colleague was made redundant a few years ago, so I just had to absorb that workload - it didn't disappear.

So, with 3 shifts of 7 people, do you think they could:
1) Get rid of one specific role from each shift, and train some or all of the other 6 people to do the job?
2) Get rid of an entire shift and change the hours of operation?
3) Get rid of a different role from each shift, and only carry out certain tasks in 2 out of 3 shifts?
4) Move certain tasks to another team altogether?
5) Get rid of a senior position and re-hire for a more junior role with slightly less responsibility?

I would imagine the only way would be option 2 as the other options wouldn't be viable with the business we are in.
But thanks for your help with this, I guess by getting rid of an entire shift they don't need to worry about the job roles as such as they'll argue there isn't a justifiable business need for three shifts whilst at the same time making us work more. Capitalism eh

Eoin

No worries, hope you're not affected too much by what happens