Risk of redundancy, re-applying for job. Can I be deselected due to existing pension?

A question about : Risk of redundancy, re-applying for job. Can I be deselected due to existing pension?

My company is re-structuring several existing teams into one new role. All members of all these teams have been warned of the risk of redundancy as there are not enough positions in the new job for everyone. We have all been invited to apply for the new jobs.

My qualifications and experience fit the new job spec perfectly and under normal circumstances I would expect my application to be successful, but I have a pension from previous forces employment. I have been told by my manager that my existing pension will count against me if I apply for one of the new jobs. Several of us are in this position, I understand a colleague has been told by a director of the company that the policy will be to effectively de-select those who have good pensions from previous employers even where they have good qualifications for the new role.

Can this be done legally? The company removed its compulsory retirement age from our contracts last year but this feels like a form of discrimination.

Any advice would be very gratefully received!

Best answers:

• Hello and welcome!
  Unfortunately the law relating to selection for alternative employment within the company does not give you anywhere near as much protection as selection for redundancy.
  So the first thing to do is to establish which this is.
  If there are (say) 10 jobs as security guards all doing the same work and the company only needs 8, then they will have to select two for redundancy and show that they have gone through a proper procedure. The presence or absence of a pension from a former employer would not be a fair criteria in that case.
  BUT if (say) all the jobs for security guards disappeared in a restructure, but there were some other jobs available which the redundant security guards were invited to apply for, then the interview/selection process is a business decision and won't be interfered with unless it is discriminatory, or a sham.
  By a sham, I mean that really the jobs you are being interviewed for are pretty much exactly the same as the former security guard jobs but with a different name, in which case they should be using a proper redundancy selection process.
  By discriminatory, I mean that the interview process or criteria amounts to direct or indirect discrimination. If it turns out that all those with pensions are also the oldest employees, so by using the pension criteria they are effectively selecting people on age grounds, that may be viewed as age discrimination. Of course if some people as old or older than you with no pension are kept on, or if some fairly young people also have pensions and are let go, that would weaken your case. But it is an avenue worth exploring.
• Thanks very much.
  Our department currently operates three different but closely related roles, the new job will incorporate all three roles with a new job title but by doing this they will need fewer people - hence we have all been warned we are at risk of redundancy. Which of your examples does this fit?
  Thanks again by the way!
• Without knowing more, I'd say it is the second.
  Are you saying that all the three separate roles will cease to exist, and instead the work currently done by the people employed to do these separate jobs is going to be amalgamated into a fewer number of jobs. So in effect the new jobs are not identical to the old ones, but are an amalgamation of functions carried out by all three of the previous roles?
  If that is a fair analysis, then the old jobs have ceased to exist and therefore all the people employed to do those jobs are redundant. That's the first stage. There is no selection for redundancy because all the jobs have ceased to exist.
  The second stage is that the employer must look for suitable alternative employment to offer the redundant employees in order to avoid terminating their employment. That is where you are up to, but unfortunately the employer has much more leeway in appointing the employees to the new roles. If there are fewer new roles than there are redundant employees, then some are going to be without a job at the end of the process.
  That isn't the end of it though. Depending on the job you do and how big the company is, there may be other vacancies that you can apply for within the company.
  On the information available to me at the moment, I'd say that your best challenge would be discrimination on age grounds. Having said that, it is worth applying and giving it your best shot because the manager who has told you this may be mistaken, or telling you what he would like to happen to discourage you from applying (is this likely?)
  EDIT: How long have you been employed by this company?
• Hi, yes your analysis is accurate. I've worked for the company for nearly 7 years, they have said they'll keep us advised of any vacancies but the nature of our roles within the company, and pending further re-structuring of other departments make it extremely unlikely any of us would find anything suitable.
  Not everyone involved in this process has the skills for this new role and the new job description is very specific so I have every intention of applying. We think the company may be hoping not everyone will apply so it may be some of us are being actively discouraged.
  Thanks again
• Okay, well here's a thought....
  Say there are 10 people at risk of redundancy following the restructure, and only 8 jobs under the new structure, but two people don't apply and accept redundancy. In that scenario the employer will be in real difficulties if it refuses to give those jobs to people who have the skills - not-withstanding their age and/or pension - and makes them redundant instead leaving unfilled vacancies.
  At that point the whole shebang starts to point towards a sham procedure.
  Do come back and let us know what happens. And if you do end up out of a job, lets have another look at it then.
  Good luck!
  Dx
• Hi again
  I will let you know and many thanks for taking the time to provide some really useful input.