Suitable Alternative Employment — Redundancy Rights and Trial Period Process

It sounds from what you've said that there have been some steps missed in a fair process here. Am I right in assuming that the role that you have been doing to date will no longer exist, and they have offered you a people management role as a 'suitable' alternative? If it is a substantially different role ('suitable' is open to interpretation), rather than an evolution, then the reorganisation has made your former role redundant and created a new role that they have matched you to. 

This sounds exactly the type of situation where the need for a 4 week trial is required - the job is not the same as the one done previously, so there is sense on both sides to try the work and understand if it is the right move. If not, and if your previous job is not available to you, then you would be eligible for redundancy.

I imagine that the employer has moved to a positive conclusion with good motives - to stop your concern about losing income/work, but in so doing has skipped the steps that allow them to change the contract between you. I would guess that they believe the new role is substantially the same as your current role, so this is the area where more discussion is needed.

Good luck.

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond, it’s really helpful to have an outside perspective on this.

To confirm your assumption. Yes, my current role will no longer exist and I have been matched to a people management role as a suitable alternative. You are right that this feels like a substantially different role rather than an evolution, which is at the heart of my concern.

I have since spoken with ACAS who have advised that as I was told I am no longer at risk, I do not have a statutory right to a trial period. I wanted to share that for completeness.

What makes this particularly difficult personally is that this isn’t just a process question for me. Over the last 6 years I have deliberately built a specialist career in my chosen field, recently completing a work-based apprenticeship (that took me 2 years to complete). To have that career direction taken away without what feels like genuine consideration of my personal circumstances has been really difficult to accept.

I remain keen to understand whether the process followed, particularly around the contractual change and formal offer and acceptance, was correct, and what options may still be available to me.

Thanks again.

ACAS don't seem to have given you anything like complete or even accurate guidance. You confirm ".....my current role will no longer exist and I have been matched to a people management role as a suitable alternative....."

Therefore, if your future role is going to be substantially different to the former one, the former one is redundant and your employer should have gone through due process with this but have decided unilaterally that the future role is suitable alternative employment, which they have no right to do, as the precedent involved is that if you do not reasonably regard it personally as suitable, eg if you want a trechnical specialist role and not to change to a people management one then you can reject it. If the employer disputes this, they can refuse to pay the redundancy compensation but would still need to dismiss you fairly and with due notice as redundant and you would have the right to challenge their decision about the redundancy payment at a Tribunal and the employer would be ordered to pay it if the Tribunal agreed you refused reasonably.

As has been pointed out, challenging all this formally will probably lead to your employment ending etc but you do appear to have at least a reasonable case for successfully doing so if you wish

PS

If you do decide to challenge it all, would start with a formal grievance and if needs be if they do not uphold it follow that by  refusing to undertake the revised duties (assuming of course that the former job is clearly redundant). 

It sounds like your employers need proper employment law advice!

If they have told you that you are no longer at risk, I think I would be inclined to write and acknowledge that and that as such you remain in the role of [the role you were in before the start of the process] and your duties remain as outlined in the attached job description [attached your old JD, or if you don't have a JD, say as outlined below and list the duties you were doing.]

I would then close by saying that in view of that, you do not understand why you are being asked to carry out [list the duties they are asking you to do] as they are substantially different to your current duties and could they clarify.

If they come back and say they don't need you to do what you were doing and now want you to do the new duties, then I'd explain that means your previous role is redundant and as such you do not accept the alternative role and wish to receive a redundancy payment.

I agree with David and Teresa - they cannot significantly change your contract without your consent. To do so they would need to make that role redundant and offer you the alternative. As I said above, the 'suitable' term is the one that will be the centre of the argument I imagine.

As far as I know, precedent has it that 'suitable' has to be from the employee's perspective and circumstances and preferences as much as from the employer's. So, if the role is changing from technical specialist duties to managing people duties, if the jobholder is reluctant to change because that doesn't meet their skillset or career goals any longer, Tribunals won't usually regard it as suitable - all depends on the particular facts though. and can never be completely sure

A trial period is a statutory construct that allows both the employer and the employee the opportunity to try out an envisaged new job role that usually isn't or might not be fully suitable as an alternative to redundancy dismissal if both mutually agree to do it. But if employer doesn't offer a trial, they need to have good and fair reasons not to. Either the employer or the employee by statutory provision can decide not to proceed during the trial in which case the employee's pre-statutory-trial redundancy payment rights are preserved. Of course there can't be a statutory trial if no statutory redundancy situation applies.

As far as I know, precedent has it that 'suitable' has to be from the employee's perspective and circumstances and preferences as much as from the employer's. So, if the role is changing from technical specialist duties to managing people duties, if the jobholder is reluctant to change because that doesn't meet their skillset or career goals any longer, Tribunals won't usually regard it as suitable - all depends on the particular facts though. and can never be completely sure

A trial period is a statutory construct that allows both the employer and the employee the opportunity to try out an envisaged new job role that usually isn't or might not be fully suitable as an alternative to redundancy dismissal if both mutually agree to do it. But if employer doesn't offer a trial, they need to have good and fair reasons not to. Either the employer or the employee by statutory provision can decide not to proceed during the trial in which case the employee's pre-statutory-trial redundancy payment rights are preserved. Of course there can't be a statutory trial if no statutory redundancy situation applies.