Cleaning up the unexpected mess created by an unfair job cut

If you are informed you are at risk of redundancy you know there is a real threat of dismissal - but you do not expect to be sacked for reporting a process is unfair.

Janice was a manager with a cleaning company when she was informed that a downturn in business meant five jobs had to be cut.

A director of the company summoned Janice to a meeting and told her the names of the members of her team she must dismiss.

Four of the individuals named were among the longest serving employees and highest paid. The other worker named was disabled, and had reasonable adjustments in place to support her.

Janice was given the order before the employees had been notified they were at risk of redundancy.

Shocked Janice, unhappy and uncomfortable with what she was instructed to do, reported it to another director of the business, believing it was the right thing to do.

But the fact she was dismissed less than a week later for making a malicious allegation against a director, left her feeling she had done the wrong thing.

Although Janice, who had over 10 years’ service prior to being sacked, did not want to be reinstated, she did want justice and to be compensated for her unfair dismissal.

Janice recognised she would need help to get what she wanted, and knew exactly where to turn to for that assistance.

About six months earlier Janice had upheld an appeal by an employee after her flexible working request had initially been rejected.

That employee was supported at the appeal hearing by one of our trade union representatives.

He obviously made an impression on Janice, as she requested his details from the worker, and was keen to get his help with her own case.

Janice then contacted our Employee Support Centre and was put in touch with the trade union rep.

He reviewed the case with Janice. The evidence to support the allegation consisted of two witness statements, one from the director who gave the order and the other who Janice had reported her concern to.

The director, who Janice said told her which employees to dismiss, denied saying it, or ever discussing redundancies with her. The other statement simply captured what Janice said to that witness.

Janice had submitted a disciplinary appeal prior to contacting us, and it was on the grounds that her dismissal was unfair.

Our trade union rep asked Janice what she wanted as an appeal outcome.

She made it clear she wanted the appeal to be upheld and to reach a settlement agreement, which would save her having to pursue the matter legally at an employment tribunal.

The case was effectively the word of Janice against that of the director as no one else was present at the meeting when she was told who to dismiss.

The managing director (MD) chaired the disciplinary appeal hearing. At the start of the hearing our trade union rep queried if staff had been informed of redundancy and told their jobs were at risk. He confirmed they had not.

Our trade union rep then questioned if the business was actually considering redundancies, given staff had not been informed.

The MD’s answer was evasive, but undeterred our trade union rep persisted with the line of questioning, eventually getting an admission that it would be announced ‘shortly’.

The fact Janice would not have been privy to those conversations and have knowledge of the planned redundancies unless she was specifically told by the director, was used to maintain that he did give her the order.

This was used to argue that what Janice said was not malicious and to maintain, along with other factors cited, that her dismissal was grossly unfair.

Our trade union rep put forward what Janice wanted as a desired outcome.

The appeal hearing was adjourned to allow for a protected conversation to take place, during which a settlement was discussed. An agreement was not reached on the day.

Discussions and negotiations concluded the following week with a settlement agreement later being reached, which Janice was delighted with.