Follow on redundancy questions

sadders said:
I’ve had both paid for advice and no win no fee advice. Both say it’s 50/50 at tribunal so I’d given up. It’s just that at the formal meeting they mentioned appeal. I don’t know how appeal differs from tribunal.
Click to expand...
An appeal would work like a grievance. You would set out your issues for them to look over and respond to.
 


HellsBells said:
Could you ask the union to help you with the appeal?

Which union is it, btw?
Click to expand...

Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists.

They gave me all of 5 minutes. Told me accept the SAE or leave.

Goat Eyes said:
Not on the forum section. They’ll get involved in anything that comes their way.

Obviously it is like this place, some advice is probably good and some crap but... The times I asked they were very helpful.
Click to expand...
I've just joined up as a non member. The section I want (employment law, policies and procedures) is locked to non-members. In fact, cant view it at all. It doesn't really seem right to use your number so can you suggest what the best section to post in is please?
 
Last edited:
sadders said:
Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists.

They gave me all of 5 minutes. Told me accept the SAE or leave.


I've just joined up as a non member. The section I want (employment law, policies and procedures) is locked to non-members. In fact, cant view it at all. It doesn't really seem right to use your number so can you suggest what the best section to post in is please?
Click to expand...
Feel free to PM me the details of you want.

It is locked, I’ve just looked.

I’ve already set the ball rolling by asking for the definition of SAE and what the criteria is.
 
Goat Eyes said:
Feel free to PM me the details of you want.

It is locked, I’ve just looked.

I’ve already set the ball rolling by asking for the definition of SAE and what the criteria is.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. After a bit of a search for similar posts I put it on the 'community feedback' section. It is awaiting moderator approval. If its a no go I will PM you the text of my post to see if you can stick it on a locked forum.

Thanks again
 
sadders said:
Thanks for that. After a bit of a search for similar posts I put it on the 'community feedback' section. It is awaiting moderator approval. If its a no go I will PM you the text of my post to see if you can stick it on a locked forum.

Thanks again
Click to expand...
It’s stressful at the best of times.

An interesting article: https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/l...ployment-what-is-a-suitable-alternative-role/

This is what I got from the CIPD forum:

I asked what the definition of SAE is and what the criteria is for measuring whether it was SAE or not.

In most cases, don’t think this is too big a problem.

Assume you’re considering the circumstances in which employer can legitimately refuse a statutory redundancy payment when employer claims there is suitable alternative employment available.

If so, this is covered by s141 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and in fact is a two stage test. Firstly, the alternative has to be substantially equivalent to the redundant role and secondly, even then, the alternative role has to be one that it would be unreasonable on the employee’s part to refuse .

Furthermore, the test of reasonableness is from the employee’s point of view. So, the employer’s legal rights in this matter are somewhat constrained - if the employee has plausible reasons why it’s not for them, then, especially if the redundant and alternative roles differ significantly, their misgivings might be judged by a Tribunal to be ‘reaonable’

So, the employee legally gets a lot of leeway in the matter. And in practice, there’s usually little point in pressganging someone into an alternative job role they’re not happy with. Resentful and disgruntled employees aren’t usually worth retaining - especially if all that’s at stake is the relative pittance of statutory redundancy payments.

I hope this helps at least a bit.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/141
 
Last edited:
More replies:

PS

There is a fair bit of case law about what is and isn’t ‘reasonable’’. This will tend to apply to the unique facts of each case and possibly be inapplicable to other scenarios, but general rules can be inferred and are contained in the usual textbooks such as ‘Selwyn on Employment Law’

As mentioned, the employee needs a sound reason ‘reasonably’ to refuse a suitable alternative. So one that was silly enough to say it was because say they don’t like change or the colour of the walls in their new office is unlikely to be considered reasonable, but one that says eg the new role doesn’t offer the same career progression or is too different to provide much personal job satisfaction may well succeed.

And

A search on the furum shoild throw up lots of illustrative posts
A point to bear in mind is that not only must the job content be such that it would be unreasonable to refuse, but the context in which the job operates must alo be reasonable for the person. As an example, a person who travels 5 miles by bus to come to work could reasonably refuse a job 4 miles from home at a place where there are no bus routes.

And

"Suitability" must also retain the employee's "status", so a redundancy from a role reporting directly to the Board would not be "suitably replaced" by one answering to an intermediate manager; or a role supervising a team of six would not be equalled by one supported by a single PA or administrator.

It is also possible for a promotion not to be "suitable", so someone redundant from a "shop floor" role could decline a supervisor's position if they did not want to accept responsibility etc.

And

A few years ago I did do a fair bit of research into SAE, which is funnily enough what got me interested in HR in the first place. I found it rather vague and felt it could be easily manipulated by either employer or employee. In fact, I refused my SAE, and won my case.

In my example, the company I worked for wanted to move me from a fairly technical, albeit customer services, role, to a call centre. Transport, salary and everything weren't an issue, but the job was. I felt it was sufficiently different for me to challenge.

I hope some of this is of use.

@sadders
 
Last edited:
Goat Eyes said:
More replies:

PS

There is a fair bit of case law about what is and isn’t ‘reasonable’’. This will tend to apply to the unique facts of each case and possibly be inapplicable to other scenarios, but general rules can be inferred and are contained in the usual textbooks such as ‘Selwyn on Employment Law’

As mentioned, the employee needs a sound reason ‘reasonably’ to refuse a suitable alternative. So one that was silly enough to say it was because say they don’t like change or the colour of the walls in their new office is unlikely to be considered reasonable, but one that says eg the new role doesn’t offer the same career progression or is too different to provide much personal job satisfaction may well succeed.

And

A search on the furum shoild throw up lots of illustrative posts
A point to bear in mind is that not only must the job content be such that it would be unreasonable to refuse, but the context in which the job operates must alo be reasonable for the person. As an example, a person who travels 5 miles by bus to come to work could reasonably refuse a job 4 miles from home at a place where there are no bus routes.

And

"Suitability" must also retain the employee's "status", so a redundancy from a role reporting directly to the Board would not be "suitably replaced" by one answering to an intermediate manager; or a role supervising a team of six would not be equalled by one supported by a single PA or administrator.

It is also possible for a promotion not to be "suitable", so someone redundant from a "shop floor" role could decline a supervisor's position if they did not want to accept responsibility etc.

And

A few years ago I did do a fair bit of research into SAE, which is funnily enough what got me interested in HR in the first place. I found it rather vague and felt it could be easily manipulated by either employer or employee. In fact, I refused my SAE, and won my case.

In my example, the company I worked for wanted to move me from a fairly technical, albeit customer services, role, to a call centre. Transport, salary and everything weren't an issue, but the job was. I felt it was sufficiently different for me to challenge.

I hope some of this is of use.

@sadders
Click to expand...

So it is fairly grey.

These are my main reasons for refusing SAE.

The main ones I mentioned so far are loss of status and it being a waste of my knowledge, skills and training forcing me to 'start again' in an unfamiliar area of my profession.

Over this period I have been doing a fair bit of soul searching as to why I am so adamant that I won't accept the SAE. After all it is more trining and strings to my bow that I would have with me when I move to another more suitable role. I think that I am scared of the high risk work. In my current musculoskeletal role the worst that can happen to a patient is that they take longer to improve or possibly don't improve. I deal with painful conditions but there is no risk to life or limb. In minor surgery you pick and choose your patients. If they are not well enough for the procedure you don't do it and refer them on for an alternative conservative modality. Again, no great risks as long as you manage them well. At the end you can say goodbye to your patient and shake their hand. In High risk (diabetes) care, the best that you can hope for is that a patient doesn't lose their leg. They are long term, often quite unwell patients who tend to deteriorate over time. There is always a heavy risk attached to them. There is lots of wound care (often with quite horrific wounds). Its not something that I am into. I don't want that sort of risk on a day to day basis. I like to sleep at night. I know my job well enough that I don't carry stress. I don't wan't the stress of the diabetes work - thats for those who enjoy that area of work.

The latter part was not stated in my refusal of the SAE. Its just that I knew that I desperately didn't want the job and was prepared to lose income to avoid it. Since then I have fathomed out why.

I don't know if that is reason enough to refuse SAE but at least I am comfortable with my choice (and know myself a bit better now) even if there is no package. However, I still feel shafted by the trust for putting me in this position.

I know thatI won't go to tribunal as I cant afford the legal representation (I know the tribunal part itself doesn't cost) and would be stupid to self represent.

I hadn't considered an appeal as it was only mentioned in the formal meeting. The process sounds a lot less formal than tribunal and more similar to a grievance. Self representing seems to be the norm. It feels like there is nothing to lose with going that route and it would be good to have the 'judgement' of a neutral.

Sorry for the ramble.

Your help has been much appreciated @Goat Eyes
 
niceonemarra said:
Mate you need to see a solicitor immediately - I would advise that you postpone the meeting some how, the union should hopefully be able to advise you how to postpone the meeting.

From what you have said you should be worried about losing your job.

Your choices are

A. Take the job
B. Refuse the job
C. Be dismissed with redundancy money
D.Be dismissed without redundancy money

You need to speak to a legal advisor asap somebody independent from your company.

Better call Saul ;)

Good luck mate I hope you get a good outcome and sorry you might lose your job :cry:
Click to expand...

He should be allowed some form of representation with him during the meeting, he can postpone on the grounds of his representative is not available at that proposed time. Ive had it where ive done disciplinaries or about to sack someone and they have dragged it out by saying union rep/lawyer/colleague/friend/dog is not available

good luck with it but it looks like they have got you tied up in knots...get intouch with ACAS and speak to multiple people lawyer/citizens advice etc to get as much info as possible
 
sadders said:
So it is fairly grey.

These are my main reasons for refusing SAE.

The main ones I mentioned so far are loss of status and it being a waste of my knowledge, skills and training forcing me to 'start again' in an unfamiliar area of my profession.

Over this period I have been doing a fair bit of soul searching as to why I am so adamant that I won't accept the SAE. After all it is more trining and strings to my bow that I would have with me when I move to another more suitable role. I think that I am scared of the high risk work. In my current musculoskeletal role the worst that can happen to a patient is that they take longer to improve or possibly don't improve. I deal with painful conditions but there is no risk to life or limb. In minor surgery you pick and choose your patients. If they are not well enough for the procedure you don't do it and refer them on for an alternative conservative modality. Again, no great risks as long as you manage them well. At the end you can say goodbye to your patient and shake their hand. In High risk (diabetes) care, the best that you can hope for is that a patient doesn't lose their leg. They are long term, often quite unwell patients who tend to deteriorate over time. There is always a heavy risk attached to them. There is lots of wound care (often with quite horrific wounds). Its not something that I am into. I don't want that sort of risk on a day to day basis. I like to sleep at night. I know my job well enough that I don't carry stress. I don't wan't the stress of the diabetes work - thats for those who enjoy that area of work.

The latter part was not stated in my refusal of the SAE. Its just that I knew that I desperately didn't want the job and was prepared to lose income to avoid it. Since then I have fathomed out why.

I don't know if that is reason enough to refuse SAE but at least I am comfortable with my choice (and know myself a bit better now) even if there is no package. However, I still feel shafted by the trust for putting me in this position.

I know thatI won't go to tribunal as I cant afford the legal representation (I know the tribunal part itself doesn't cost) and would be stupid to self represent.

I hadn't considered an appeal as it was only mentioned in the formal meeting. The process sounds a lot less formal than tribunal and more similar to a grievance. Self representing seems to be the norm. It feels like there is nothing to lose with going that route and it would be good to have the 'judgement' of a neutral.

Sorry for the ramble.

Your help has been much appreciated @Goat Eyes
Click to expand...
I’m not a HR expert so certainly couldn’t advise beyond what I have written and what I know but the part that stood out for me was the fact that before it goes to tribunal it has to go through ACAS, which I assume will be free to appeal via them.

Do your own appeal stating all the things you wrote above and hope they see sense. Then go through ACAS, this will give you a strong idea as to the likelihood of going to and success at tribunal. The majority of unfair dismissal cases never go to court as they are settled at the ACAS stage.
 
Goat Eyes said:
More replies:

PS

There is a fair bit of case law about what is and isn’t ‘reasonable’’. This will tend to apply to the unique facts of each case and possibly be inapplicable to other scenarios, but general rules can be inferred and are contained in the usual textbooks such as ‘Selwyn on Employment Law’

As mentioned, the employee needs a sound reason ‘reasonably’ to refuse a suitable alternative. So one that was silly enough to say it was because say they don’t like change or the colour of the walls in their new office is unlikely to be considered reasonable, but one that says eg the new role doesn’t offer the same career progression or is too different to provide much personal job satisfaction may well succeed.

And

A search on the furum shoild throw up lots of illustrative posts
A point to bear in mind is that not only must the job content be such that it would be unreasonable to refuse, but the context in which the job operates must alo be reasonable for the person. As an example, a person who travels 5 miles by bus to come to work could reasonably refuse a job 4 miles from home at a place where there are no bus routes.

And

"Suitability" must also retain the employee's "status", so a redundancy from a role reporting directly to the Board would not be "suitably replaced" by one answering to an intermediate manager; or a role supervising a team of six would not be equalled by one supported by a single PA or administrator.

It is also possible for a promotion not to be "suitable", so someone redundant from a "shop floor" role could decline a supervisor's position if they did not want to accept responsibility etc.

And

A few years ago I did do a fair bit of research into SAE, which is funnily enough what got me interested in HR in the first place. I found it rather vague and felt it could be easily manipulated by either employer or employee. In fact, I refused my SAE, and won my case.

In my example, the company I worked for wanted to move me from a fairly technical, albeit customer services, role, to a call centre. Transport, salary and everything weren't an issue, but the job was. I felt it was sufficiently different for me to challenge.

I hope some of this is of use.

@sadders
Click to expand...
Could you give your opinion on this scenario. The wife is currently a team leader at Sainsbury’s and all team leader roles are being removed from all stores. Apparently at some point she will be offered alternative employment as a normal shop floor colleague on less money and possibly less hours. Would her turning that down be reasonable in regards to getting redundancy.
 
ir35 said:
Could you give your opinion on this scenario. The wife is currently a team leader at Sainsbury’s and all team leader roles are being removed from all stores. Apparently at some point she will be offered alternative employment as a normal shop floor colleague on less money and possibly less hours. Would her turning that down be reasonable in regards to getting redundancy.
Click to expand...
I’m no lawyer but that doesn’t sound like suitable alternative employment at all. Less money, lower grade? Nee chance.

Any update @sadders ?
 
kossoff said:
No. A role becomes redundant, not the person. And in the case of a role being made redundant/removed, if the employers see fit, they will offer a suitable alternative role. If the person who has lost their role decides to refuse this they can be dismissed on the grounds that they are refusing SAE.

There is no automatic right to a payout if a role is made redundant. It appears that the OP's employers feel/are bluffing that they have taken the right approach in this case.
Click to expand...

Important bit in bold.

ir35 said:
Could you give your opinion on this scenario. The wife is currently a team leader at Sainsbury’s and all team leader roles are being removed from all stores. Apparently at some point she will be offered alternative employment as a normal shop floor colleague on less money and possibly less hours. Would her turning that down be reasonable in regards to getting redundancy.
Click to expand...

Classic redundancy situation, she's under no obligation to take a (clearly) lesser role if it's not suitable. Open/shut case IMO.

When I was last made redundant (software dev crap in IT) they offered me the only available vacancy in the post room. I said no thanks, I got redundancy.
 
Last edited:
ir35 said:
Could you give your opinion on this scenario. The wife is currently a team leader at Sainsbury’s and all team leader roles are being removed from all stores. Apparently at some point she will be offered alternative employment as a normal shop floor colleague on less money and possibly less hours. Would her turning that down be reasonable in regards to getting redundancy.
Click to expand...
I think they’re both right, it doesn’t sound suitable. But she’ll likely be offered it or redundancy.

Morrison’s are starting the same thing too. Another “management restructure”.
 
Goat Eyes said:
I think they’re both right, it doesn’t sound suitable. But she’ll likely be offered it or redundancy.

Morrison’s are starting the same thing too. Another “management restructure”.
Click to expand...
you'd almost think the bastards were in cahoots the way it's been announced. Top man from Sainsburys visiting Arnison store today

going through the same thing myself, I stand to get a canny lump but intend fighting them for constructive dismissal, just waiting to hear from the solicitor

good luck all, seems to be a lot about at the minute
 
@Goat Eyes In my wife’s case she has now been told she will have to apply for a new position and won’t just be offered an alternative role without applying for one and being successful . Am I right in thinking if they don’t actually offer a specific job without having to apply for it, then she will be entitled to redundancy regardless .
 

Back
Top