An apology (of sorts)

Preface:


An apology:  I am not a writer.  I'm a talker.  I am uncomfortable with putting word to page and often suffer from a writer's block so severe it would make Barton Fink seem like Stephen King.  Or Jeffrey Archer.  Probably more like Jeffrey Archer (given my writing style).  This is the reason I started to blog about my experiences in redundancy and my role as the ECF representative of a small bunch of those "at risk".   Sadly I'm crap at this and didn't really continue - despite encouragement.


So this will be my penultimate post on this topic.  No one will probably read it anyway, but I'm getting it out of my system.  So it's probably some small form of catharsis for me.


Post:


Background
Today and tomorrow, 48 people will lose their jobs in a cost-cutting exercise, designed to reduce dramatic loss of income from the UK business.  Specifically, fees generated were down 24% on expectations.  Job losses are the only actions the business are taking, but form a large part and have the largest impact.

When 20 or more people are made "at risk" of redundancy an employer has a statutory obligation to look at:

• Ways of avoiding dismissal
• Reducing the number of employees to be dismissed
• mitigating the effects of redundancy

Further, they must disclose:  

• Reasons for the proposal
• Number and occupations
• Total number employed in these occupations
• Proposed method of carrying out the dismissals, including timelines
• Proposed method of selection (for any new roles created)
• Proposed methods of calculating redundancy payments

This is achieved by going through a consultation process which lasts 30 days and takes place in two distinct parts:  Individual and collective. Individually, those at risk will have meetings with management and HR on a weekly basis.  Things discussed are:

• An explanation of what is happening and why
• A brief explanation of the consultation process
• An initial financial statement detailing redundancy payments, any holiday accrued, payment in lieu of notice (PILON)
• Any personal concerns

Collectively, those at risk have the right to be represented during those 30 days.  Representatives meet with senior management (usually a board member) and senior HR personnel on a weekly basis to discuss, challenge and attempt to influence the (first nine) points above.


I was one of six reps nominated and elected.

For four weeks this task consumed pretty much all of my time at work.  We visited ACAS and received training in our rights (as those at risk of redundancy) and our responsibilities as reps.  Which are:

• to read and understand the redundancy proposals
• to gain knowledge of the main legal requirements
• to report back to employees (those at risk) on proposals and seek their views
• to discuss with other representatives the collective staff response ans provide feedback
• to work with other representatives and management to get the best results for employees and the employer
• NOT to negotiate on behalf of individuals

But we failed on our primary task.  It is hard to really influence the redundancy process when one has no leverage, no resources and no recourse to legal advice.  We failed to save even one job.  We failed to influence on redundancy packages, bonuses, PILON.  We failed on everything because our employer refused to consider any suggestions/scenarios we put forward.  We had no bargaining power.  No leverage.  We were nothing more than conduits for diktat.


We had lost before we started, because the company had already decided its course of action and that consultation was something they had to abide by for statutory reasons.


My final post well be on my personal feelings:  How both this process and the whole affair has affected me. I'll do that later today.