Opinions on work unions advice regarding our jobs

lifeandtimes

Hi everyone.

Long story short our company has outsourced our department to another country,its been 5 months of very unprofessional handling of the situation saying we have to go here or there but out contracts state we are permanent for our department,plus ass the other work is of lesser standard of our current roles, which leaves us all currently sitting around doing nothing as weve no work and our union advised to show up and just sit there as its not our fault we have no work and we have been told redundancy is not an offer

A meeting was held to propose a trial of us working in a different department,the job role itself is less favourable to our current role and would be seen by all our department of over 10 as a demotion.
We have been advised that we can try the role under a trial and we can withdraw from it if we are not happy,however there is no confirmation yet (we are waiting for this) on what we will be doing if we withdraw.
The union have advised that we should do the trial and then pull out if we arent happy, because if the situation arises were we go to the labour court we will have a stronger case as it will be seen we tried to meet them halfway,tried the other role which is a demotion and it didnt work out. Otherwise if we dont the judge will throw the case as we will be seen as unreasonable for not at least trying the other role.

Does this advice seem sound? I guess it kind of makes sense but the when i read citzens informarion regrading redundancy etc it says the need to offer us another role of equal or greater status and cannot be considered less favourable work...the new job is just that so i feel we would be within our rights to refuse it outright and if it went to court that shouod be seen.

Its quite messy and sorry for the long post but id like peoples opinions on the union advice,past experiences and anything else the feel is relevant
Thanks

Kings Inns or bust

Hasn't this been going on for some time? It's certainly not the first time I've heard a similar story. I really would have thought one of ye would have got a second opinion off of a solicitor. Perhaps all chip in? It's something which seems to be very important to you, rightly so, so don't take random advice off the interwebz.

lifeandtimes

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Hasn't this been going on for some time? It's certainly not the first time I've heard a similar story. I really would have thought one of ye would have got a second opinion off of a solicitor. Perhaps all chip in? It's something which seems to be very important to you, rightly so, so don't take random advice off the interwebz.

Thanks but you see we pay the union to advise us on this situation and this is the advice theyve given and id like other peoples thoughts on it.

If you were in the situation would you do as they advise or not?

goz83

The unions aren't legal advisors and they don't know what the courts would bring about. Take the above advice and see a solicitor.

Kings Inns or bust

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Thanks but you see we pay the union to advise us on this situation and this is the advice theyve given and id like other peoples thoughts on it.

If you were in the situation would you do as they advise or not?

I pay my Doctor to advise me, it doesn't mean if it's still itches when I pee I don't get a second opinion.

I have absolutely no idea as I've absolutely no real understanding of the situation and neither should you attempt to disabuse me or anyone else of that. I'm extremely skeptical about unions, they're grand for organising some tea and cakes on picket lines but they're usually a sledge hammer when you need a scalpel. What are the credentials of the legal advisors?

sixpack's little hat

I'm no expert but the situation sounds somewhat similar to what happened in Siemens a number of years ago in Cork. The difference being it was already an outside contract that was moving rather than work being outsourced.

http://www.unionadvantage.ie/redundancy/siemensitsolutionsdetails/
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/siemens-agrees-to-redundancy-talks-152246.html

Mrs OBumble

goz83 wrote: »

The unions aren't legal advisors and they don't know what the courts would bring about. Take the above advice and see a solicitor.

Unions typically employ a solicitor or two, and aren't clueless about what the courts are likely to say.

But they often have an overarching objective of saving jobs (ie keeping union members). So they have an incentive to recommend actions that are likely to keep more people employed under worse conditions, rather than the opposite. So sometimes their advice needs to be checked against what others would advise.

lifeandtimes

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Unions typically employ a solicitor or two, and aren't clueless about what the courts are likely to say.

But they often have an overarching objective of saving jobs (ie keeping union members). So they have an incentive to recommend actions that are likely to keep more people employed under worse conditions, rather than the opposite. So sometimes their advice needs to be checked against what others would advise.

Thank you for your reply,i had a feeling the union may have had an ulterior motive in all this and keeping staff so they still get paid makes sense.

Im going to get legal advice,thanks everyone

goz83

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Unions typically employ a solicitor or two, and aren't clueless about what the courts are likely to say.

But they often have an overarching objective of saving jobs (ie keeping union members). So they have an incentive to recommend actions that are likely to keep more people employed under worse conditions, rather than the opposite. So sometimes their advice needs to be checked against what others would advise.

The union may well have the advice of a solicitor, or two, but as you've stated, they often have their objectives and self interests. The OP may be getting chinese whispers delivered and so should seek legal advice from someone less interested in the unions objectives.

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. The OP should speak to a solicitor.

Glass fused light

Another vote for a specialist solicitor.

Your post does not make it clear if everyone wants redundancy or just some. Will some accept a job equal to what you had. Can you seek training which would make you more employable. what is the progression path if you stay, will the company engineer individual exits over the long term. Are the union waiting for the company to offer redundancy or is there a time scale where it will be a constructive dismissal. How about the company's breaching internal policies like 'dignity in work'.
The solicitor can meet you individually and tailor a targeted response different from the union, you may be adding pressure by adding a new party to the mix, plus you are indicating the negotiation are moving to a new level.

mansize

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Unions typically employ a solicitor or two, and aren't clueless about what the courts are likely to say.

But they often have an overarching objective of saving jobs (ie keeping union members). So they have an incentive to recommend actions that are likely to keep more people employed under worse conditions, rather than the opposite. So sometimes their advice needs to be checked against what others would advise.

Unions would first and foremost protect the working conditions of the workers - if it's not feasible that they can remain the same they will prefer their members to be working than not working tbf

Here the unions perhaps feel without sufficent evidence, it may not be seen automatically as a demotion

lifeandtimes

Glass fused light wrote: »

Another vote for a specialist solicitor.

Your post does not make it clear if everyone wants redundancy or just some. Will some accept a job equal to what you had. Can you seek training which would make you more employable. what is the progression path if you stay, will the company engineer individual exits over the long term. Are the union waiting for the company to offer redundancy or is there a time scale where it will be a constructive dismissal. How about the company's breaching internal policies like 'dignity in work'.
The solicitor can meet you individually and tailor a targeted response different from the union, you may be adding pressure by adding a new party to the mix, plus you are indicating the negotiation are moving to a new level.

to be honest the fact its taken so long and the handling of the situation has not been very professional, everyone really just wants to get out as the trust has been broken and who wants to work with an employer they cant trust, theyre have been very shady tactic by the company in the run up to the meeting which left sour tastes in all our mouths.
There is no real progressin path, the new role would be in a different department at the bottom again i.e entry level role.
The union havnt mentioned anything about redudency but the length of time this is taken contructive dissmisal seems possible with some of the people in the department.
The negotions moving to another leve is whats needed, they havent respected us up to this point and it seems we need an impartial person to weigh in and give advice on what to do next so we are discussing contacting a solicitor

_Brian

I think this all hinges on the comparison between the two positions. If the company can put across a reasonable case that the two roles are essentially the same then by refusing the roles you can be let go without redundancy payment.
The company will have been seen to offer suitable alternative employment and you will have refused it.

I don't think the employment they offer needs to be identical, but "suitable alternative".

Get a second opinion on this, it wouldn't be the first time poor advice from a union lost people their jobs.

lifeandtimes

_Brian wrote: »

I think this all hinges on the comparison between the two positions. If the company can put across a reasonable case that the two roles are essentially the same then by refusing the roles you can be let go without redundancy payment.
The company will have been seen to offer suitable alternative employment and you will have refused it.

I don't think the employment they offer needs to be identical, but "suitable alternative".

Get a second opinion on this, it wouldn't be the first time poor advice from a union lost people their jobs.

thanks for your input, ill give a little bit more detail and mods please note i am not looking for legal advise this is just context.

The roles they want us to do are part of a pilot scheme i.e its only active a few months but can be shut down at any time(not the first one and wont be the last), the other people working there did not interview for the role and were selected from an entry level department and asked if they wanted to do it, there is no contract for this role either meaning that the people in this role can be reverted back to their orignal post at any time
Were as with our roles there was an interview process and new contracts provided.

My post was regarding the unions advice and what people thought of it and the conses is get other advice which was kinda what we were hoping to hear as what they advised didnt sit right with us based on the information above

livedadream

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

I pay my Doctor to advise me, it doesn't mean if it's still itches when I pee I don't get a second opinion.

this is the best thing ive ever read in regards to a union. :P:P:P:P:P

Glass fused light

lifeandtimes wrote: »

theyre have been very shady tactic by the company in the run up to the meeting which left sour tastes in all our mouths.

Another benefit is that when you are dealing with management a reply of 'l will speak to my solicitor' reminds them it may end in court so that they should do the same and can remind individuals that being quoted in the papers as having said or done X may not be a good long term career move.

Kings Inns or bust

OP I freely admit Employment law is not a subject with which I have much familiarity with or talent for but just to give an idea why specific legal advice might be wise: a break down of trust can be a reason for termination of employment in some jurisdictions. I would be very careful how you proceed.

Ericdravancrow

"We have been advised that we can try the role under a trial and we can withdraw from it if we are not happy"

Would this not set a precedent that you accepted the new work terms?

lifeandtimes

Ericdravancrow wrote: »

"We have been advised that we can try the role under a trial and we can withdraw from it if we are not happy"

Would this not set a precedent that you accepted the new work terms?

No it wouldnt

"You may take up an alternative on trial for up to 4 weeks. Where the alternative involves a reduction of 50% or more in hours or pay, working under the new arrangements for up to 52 weeks will not count as an acceptance."

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy_procedures.html

However the work is of less status and the concensus is that if we were to even trial it,they would make it very difficult for us leave the trial i.e. hr procedures taking longer than usual to withdraw us and the whole thing being put on the long finger etc