I have had a few messages from readers challenging their employer’s redundancy decisions recently and think a story I wrote a few years back might be of interest. The intro is below followed by a link to the full NZ Herald story…
Employment courts are looking at company redundancy decisions to check that newly created jobs are not the same as the ones being axed and that there is a solid business case for cutting staff numbers.
“If you look at some of the bigger redundancy proposals we often see employers terminating a number of roles, and inviting the incumbents to apply for new roles,” said Christchurch employment lawyer John Shingleton. “But sometimes, you look at the new role and wonder how different it is to the old one.
“That is one of the things the employment courts are now looking at – to see if a redundancy is genuine – and they do that by comparing job descriptions, to see how similar the old and new jobs are.”
A principle of employment law is that a redundancy should relate to a position, not a person, the basic premise being that jobs – not people – can become redundant…
Full story here.
Also of interest: Are you being managed out?