Rachel Croft
35 Boardman Ave
Blackpool
Lancs
FY1 6QD
31 May 2013
Dear Fiona,
On Monday 20th May I had the negative outcome from my appeal against the redundancy process. On reflection, it does seem that Emma had to identify a number of “lessons learnt” for the HR Management Team when dealing with restructures and redundancies. I do find this hard to believe, and the process is clearly not what it should be, so I am unsure how can this be fair and consistent?
My appeal has also identified how badly:
1/ My work related stress illness has been poorly managed by Nik Bridge and his promises of support were never fulfilled, causing me further stress, regardless of what that support looked liked. And also the missed levels of stress within Niks team which didn’t raise any alarm bells. I have also checked with your comment around DDA and I have been on medication for over a year now, which controls my condition and so I am covered under the DDA Act. Nik was well aware I have been on medication, and for the amount of time I have just stated, which again should have raised alarm bells.
2/Performance Management- there was a lack of one to ones (only 3 for the year in total when promised one every month after my successful grievance). There was also no guidance on where my skills needed improving which reduced my skills on the scoring matrix. This also increased my work related stress levels (please note my comment on work place stress).
3/ Skills rating – I am still not convinced that this process has been done consistently or fairly as no true explanation has been given on how this was evaluated and employee’s with less skills as myself have been marked with the same score.
Nik has been given feedback I hear from Emma, and again with more lessons learnt, it’s ironic that even though he hasn’t correctly supported me in my role, it’s Nik who has been successful in a role and myself that has been made redundant. I feel strongly that I have been grossly and unfairly treated. If I had been properly supported in both areas then I would not find myself in this redundancy situation.
Since my meeting it has also been brought to my attention that there was another role that I could have been offered – this being the level 9 role. I have not seen the job description but I believe it is regarding allocation of work to which I have experience and have worked doing this regularly. As stated to Nik previously I could have also increased my hours to take on this role as my circumstances are due to change with my son Tom going to school. I see that Tom Leech has got this. (As Nik would say, he was chosen for his football team!) I note that he frequently enjoys a pint with Nik during the week nights, obviously his face fits.
I have also been told that Tom Leech has been working on Payroll and Maternity queries that are not a level 9 job but level 7. Has he already been promoted to Level 7 or is this in the foreseeable? It is important to note that redundancy applies when there is no longer a need for anyone to carry out your role, not simply that you will not be performing it.
With overtime being offered it also shows that there is no real need for redundancies.?
Joelle Parkinson’s case highlights the issue about the scoring being inconsistent, as after earlier comments regarding this she too has now been made redundant however no-one has been asked to fill her place. Why if this is now a vacancy has no-one been offered the chance to stay? This is truly unfair and seems discriminative against the employee’s about to be made redundant, especially the part timer amongst us.I’m sure that this falls under the Sex Discrimination Act with most part time workers being the main carers for children?
I now strongly believe that the redundancy process has not been handled correctly because of all of the above. Facts show that the majority of employees at level 7 and below who have been made redundant are either, part time or have a history of work related stress sickness that I feel show the lack of support and unreasonable work demands on Niks team. I also strongly believe that these redundancies are not redundancies but a staged way of dismissing staff.
After legal advice from an employment law solicitor this afternoon I have been made aware that I only have 3months in which to make my application to the Employment Tribunal from the original date of my redundancy letter, so time is of the essence. I have been told that this can be a stressful, time consuming and costly action to take from both parties involved.
The solicitor advised me that it would be best to negotiate a “without prejudice” Compromised Agreement settlement with AXA as it quickly resolves the above from happening along with the bad publicity it brings to AXA and it’s HR.
I explained to the solicitor that employee’s had been paid using a “full time salary equivalent redundancy calculation” when they were only part time employee’s. She did say to me that this was an unusual and inconsistent approach, and so her advice was to request a settlement, to include a 12 month’s salary payment and also a redundancy payment which was based on my full time salary. The solicitor has offered further support, if required.
I am away from the office now until the 10th June as I am going away on holiday. I am happy to be contacted via my personal email however I may not have access to my emails but I will try to find a way of checking them.As you may see I have copied my solicitor into this email therefore please can I ask that my solicitor is copied into any emailed replies?
Kind regards
Rachel Croft
CC Pat Brady, Head of HR Services, Axa
CC Martin Shipway, Palmer Hodgson and Heyes Solicitors