Redundancies

[justintime129]

In some cases yes, those particular individuals had reached their ceiling, were not performing that well in post and rank and were not contributing to the wider fabric of the RAF. So in that regard it would be entirely reasonable to make them redundant. This is no different to the outside world, where the saying is 'make yourself too valuable to the organisation to avoid being made redundant'.

Yes individuals who were on redundancy boards were also in the fields for redundancy, but I can confirm that they obviously didn't sit on their own boards. No doubt some will get the letter booting them out!

So what you are saying is the RAF are going against what stevienics has said in a previous post. Treading on a minefield there. Also I your saying about being too valuable to be made redundant us rubbush, nobody is too valuable, if anything they are the first to go as the experienced employees are also the most costly. Loyalty in civvy street only goes one way.

 

[FootTapper]

It is fair because the same criteria have been applied to all those in the field. I believe that meets the definition of fairness.

If I remember rightly - that's treating people "the same", not necessarily "fairly".

To treat people fairly you have to take into account equality and diversity issues, rather than applying a "one rule fits all"

 

[justintime129]

If I remember rightly - that's treating people "the same", not necessarily "fairly".

To treat people fairly you have to take into account equality and diversity issues, rather than applying a "one rule fits all"

Good point well made

 

[TDJ]

So what you are saying is the RAF are going against what stevienics has said in a previous post. Treading on a minefield there. Also I your saying about being too valuable to be made redundant us rubbush, nobody is too valuable, if anything they are the first to go as the experienced employees are also the most costly. Loyalty in civvy street only goes one way.

Not quite, stevienics is talking about incompetence, whereas mine was centred on future value. Subtle difference, but to mention that it is open to any form of tribunal is just fallacy, very similar to the 'I can go after 28 days rubbish', the process for redundancy has been checked against employment law and meets the standard. The number of redundancies matches the number of established posts that will go across the entire Service.

 

[Stevienics]

Not quite, stevienics is talking about incompetence, whereas mine was centred on future value. Subtle difference, but to mention that it is open to any form of tribunal is just fallacy, very similar to the 'I can go after 28 days rubbish', the process for redundancy has been checked against employment law and meets the standard. The number of redundancies matches the number of established posts that will go across the entire Service.

It is a strange employment law then. Future value to the service can be based upon qualifications, but cetrtainly not whatever you call the 6442 these days. You cannot simply distestablish a position then move that position holder into someone else's place so they can be made redundant - because they are not being made redundant; they are being fired.

Let me put it another way; anything you do on the basis of competency, incompetency or someones perception of value based upon either has to be dealt with in a set protocol and on a person by person basis, and only then after the opportunity has been afforded that person to improve. If you don't do this, I am pretty sure that a visit to any ind Trib will back this up.

 

[True Blue Jack]

It is a strange employment law then. Future value to the service can be based upon qualifications, but cetrtainly not whatever you call the 6442 these days. You cannot simply distestablish a position then move that position holder into someone else's place so they can be made redundant - because they are not being made redundant; they are being fired.

Let me put it another way; anything you do on the basis of competency, incompetency or someones perception of value based upon either has to be dealt with in a set protocol and on a person by person basis, and only then after the opportunity has been afforded that person to improve. If you don't do this, I am pretty sure that a visit to any ind Trib will back this up.

So if you were to disestablish a post for, e.g., a marketing director, that marketing director would be made redundant. That obviously fits very well in civvy street but in the musical chairs world of the Armed Forces it's just not practical. Therefore other criteria must be applied and those criteria have been laid bare for all to see. Everyone in the field has been subject to exactly the same criteria, which in this instance is absolutely fair.

Good point well made

129, I'm curious to know why this round of Armed Forces redundancies interests you. You are not affected in the slightest way by any of the decisions made yet you seem intent on inflaming a subject which is already emotionally charged for many people who are in the frame. Stupid might have been a little strong, but foolish certainly fits the bill.

 

[MrMasher]

Should be an interesting day at this secret chopper base in Shropshire.

People find out what they're getting in the day and then early evening they all get rewarded with an annual reception parade!

I wonder if the parade will be smaller on the evening than the practices !

 

[justintime129]

129, I'm curious to know why this round of Armed Forces redundancies interests you. You are not affected in the slightest way by any of the decisions made yet you seem intent on inflaming a subject which is already emotionally charged for many people who are in the frame. Stupid might have been a little strong, but foolish certainly fits the bill.

Didnt realize this forum was for serving members only. Must have missed the ruled somewhere. As for this topic having nothing do with me I'm taking an interest in something which was close to me at one time and could still apply to me in my career now.

You carry on toeing the party line and being the company man.

 

[Weebl]

It surprises me then that the MoD can get away with this. Were it me, and I was removed against my will, and there was even the smallest component of comptency suspected in the judgement (and I trust that the RAF has to be open in the terms upon which it makes the decison), I would be down the solicitors in a flash had I not been offered the chance for personal development to address any issues.

I am pretty sure the RAF can 'prove' they have already given people plently of scope for improvement due to our system of MPARs and SJARs, and the SJAR is what is being looked at to prove 'competency'

Saying that there will be plenty of people who have not had an MPAR in the lead up to the latest SJAR which could rock the boat a little.

I personally am a bit hacked off that due to doing my job well enough to be made an 'A' cat on the PSB goes against me on the redundancy board, possibly enough of a difference to mean my application is unsuccesful. I can see why the RAF may want to keep someone who is more promotable than another, but by applying for redundancy, I have stated quite clearly I want out.

Will keeping me in really be better than keeping in somebody who wants to stay in but has scored less well on the last PSB?

Oh well, I will find out Thursday.

 

[Climebear]

It is a strange employment law then. Future value to the service can be based upon qualifications, but cetrtainly not whatever you call the 6442 these days. You cannot simply distestablish a position then move that position holder into someone else's place so they can be made redundant - because they are not being made redundant; they are being fired.

Let me put it another way; anything you do on the basis of competency, incompetency or someones perception of value based upon either has to be dealt with in a set protocol and on a person by person basis, and only then after the opportunity has been afforded that person to improve. If you don't do this, I am pretty sure that a visit to any ind Trib will back this up.

2 key elements here -

First, the employment law relating to redundancy is detailed in Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 . Unison published the following guidance on the definition of redundancy:

Definition

A genuine redundancy only arises, for the purposes of redundancy pay, in the following situations (Employment Rights Act 1996 s 136):

• the employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which, or in the place where, the employee was so employed; or

• the requirements of the business for the employees to carry out work of a particular kind, in the place where they were so employed (or otherwise), has ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish.​

The definition is therefore quite wide: a redundancy can occur where the workforce is reorganised and there is less work; when changes in conditions mean that the old job is quite different from the new one; where the business relocates; or when an employer puts work out to contract. The test for redundancy is whether the employer requires fewer (or no) workers to do work of a particular kind, and not just whether the work itself has ceased or diminished. The primary reasons for making redundancies are the reorganisation of working methods and efficiencies. Confusion may arise because ‘making someone redundant' is often used as an euphemism for saying an employee is being dismissed for some reason other than redundancy.

Therefore, an employee selected for redundancy does not have to be filling a specific post that is no longer required.

Second, this mention of employment law is all immaterial to the Armed Forces Redundancy Schemes anyway. Only some specified elements of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The specific sections that do apply to the Armed Forces are listed in the Act's Section 192; the Act itself does not apply the redunancy requirements of Part XI to the Armed Forces.

 

[CC]

My only question here to the fairness of it all is this?

Some people in certain places HAVE been overlooked for redundancy, even though they are eligible. So how is that fair?

 

[justintime129]

My only question here to the fairness of it all is this?

Some people in certain places HAVE been overlooked for redundancy, even though they are eligible. So how is that fair?

Well it isn't fair and could open up an whole can of worms if people who are selected for redundancy are able to substantiate your post.

 

[Climebear]

Well it isn't fair and could open up an whole can of worms if people who are selected for redundancy are able to substantiate your post.

That element has been clear from the start - at the PM's direction, non-applicants deployed on Ops where they earn the Operational Allowance will not be selected for redundancy.

Mind you, there is nothing to say that they would be safe in the subsequent rounds once they are back from Ops.

 

[CC]

That element has been clear from the start - at the PM's direction, non-applicants deployed on Ops where they earn the Operational Allowance will not be selected for redundancy.

Mind you, there is nothing to say that they would be safe in the subsequent rounds once they are back from Ops.

Totally agree that come future rounds of redundancy, they might not be so lucky. But I just think it's a bit off that you could have been DWR'd for Afghan 12 months ago, which now ends up protecting you from redundancy....right place right time I suppose DT_Xtremez_35:

 

[justintime129]

Ok I understand the bit about people on deployment.

 

[Joe_90]

That element has been clear from the start - at the PM's direction, non-applicants deployed on Ops where they earn the Operational Allowance will not be selected for redundancy.

Mind you, there is nothing to say that they would be safe in the subsequent rounds once they are back from Ops.

I'm not in the frame but that bit really grips me, it's pretty much saying that all other detachments in support of what's going on out there, or anywhere else, are worth less. If that's the case why do I have to go and support them for four months every couple of years?

 

[justintime129]

When the dust as settled from this round of redundancies the RAF need to take a long hard at itself and ask itself why excellent men with a future decided to put their hands up and volunteer to get out. L

 

[SORRY CJ]

RAF need to take a long hard at itself and ask itself why excellent men with a future decided to put their hands up and volunteer to get out.

...........And you think they will do this?

I don't


SCJ

 

[True Blue Jack]

We lost many good men and women in the redundancy rounds of the 90s and 00s; this is no different. The more interesting question is why, given that morale has been very low for an extended period, people are not queuing up to leave. I'm sure the answer does not lie solely in the state of the economy - people of talent and resource still have the opportunity to do well for themselves.

 

[CC]

We lost many good men and women in the redundancy rounds of the 90s and 00s; this is no different. The more interesting question is why, given that morale has been very low for an extended period, people are not queuing up to leave. I'm sure the answer does not lie solely in the state of the economy - people of talent and resource still have the opportunity to do well for themselves.

TBJ, I actually do think it's the economy that is stopping many people from leaving, and the pension trap for those that haven't quite served 22 yrs.