Originally Posted by
TURIN
Good point.
It is the job role that is redundant, not the individual. Of course, I'm sure BA's HR department is working overtime to discover a legal loophole that will allow them to redifine each job role.
Under redundancy legislation, it is always the role that is made redundant, not the person. There is no need to look for 'loopholes', because there are plenty of criteria that justify redundancy, set out in legislation. One key redundancy reasonableness criterion is the physical location of the role. This may be what is behind the talk of closing operations at Gatwick. It would be legally more straightforward to make all LGW-based employees redundant, because the base is closing (ie very hard to challenge the redundancy in consultation, or at an Employment Tribunal afterwards).
BA must offer ‘suitable alternative employment’ to anyone facing redundancy (as long as you have been working there for two years or more). It could offer new jobs at LHR, but with new T&Cs.
However, if you live in East Grinstead and work at LGW and face the commute to LHR in a new, less well paid, role, whatever is on offer might not be that attractive in terms of time and cost to the employee.
BA cannot force pay cuts on staff that breach terms of contract, unless the employee voluntarily agrees to it. Trying to frighten employees into accepting worse terms of employment by holding the axe over LGW operations looks to me like hedging bets. BA thinks it can either save alot of money if it gains agreement to worsen terms and keep (some?) of its LGW ops open, which it can always close later on, or close it altogether now and concentrate at LHR T5. Either way it slashes costs.
Given the corporate culture at BA, this really shouldn't surprise anyone. I wouldn't hold out much hope for anything more than statutory minimum payout either.
It's very tough being made redundant in normal times, but so much worse now. My thoughts are with those under notice. I know how gut wrenching it is.