Management Restructure?

[Welsh-Hugh]

I'm still not with your thoughts. In our DC managers fight over who is to be shiftys right hand man. Often doing the role to make them look good and better than other managers and mere mortals on shop floor. Now when the company want managers to step up there is uproar. Managers in DC are often seen to abuse breaks themselves and at the moment there is little symphony for them at floor level. Most managers are either lazy or bullies. If the company want to half the numbers then so be it. Managers will now have to work for a living . That's what they don't like. At least you don't have syp on pick to worry about

[babymetal]

From my point of view i have quite a bit of sympathy for 90% of the managers at my DC, they have been nothing but fair and decent to me and most colleagues who do the job and do it well. Most of our managers see their role as managing and looking after their crew but a few do not seem to understand the "looking after" part of the job. 

[babymetal]

We are due to lose 6 managers per shift and so far at least 2 are leaving for new jobs, some that want redundancy ain't getting it and the rest who knows

[babymetal]

In the next few months we are losing managers, being replaced with pod monkeys and getting loads of work from welham. We have been recruiting now for a couple months, standards are beyond shocking.

[Arizonarugby]

We are due to lose 6 managers per shift and so far at least 2 are leaving for new jobs, some that want redundancy ain't getting it and the rest who knows

I'm still not with your thoughts. In our DC managers fight over who is to be shiftys right hand man. Often doing the role to make them look good and better than other managers and mere mortals on shop floor. Now when the company want managers to step up there is uproar. Managers in DC are often seen to abuse breaks themselves and at the moment there is little symphony for them at floor level. Most managers are either lazy or bullies. If the company want to half the numbers then so be it. Managers will now have to work for a living . That's what they don't like. At least you don't have syp on pick to worry about

Welsh-Hugh you are still missing the point , the shift manager won't be able to have a right hand man , and SYP have been replaced by my performance and the policy for that is that everybody regardless of performance has a review at least once every 4 weeks which effectively is more work, especially when you consider the manager will have twice as many people in their team

[Welsh-Hugh]

If they have twice as many in team then they will have to work. They won't be able to have as many smoking breaks. Hours on PlayStation or playing table tennis. My heart bleeds for them. They have had it easy too long and now the company have caught up with them. This should have happened years ago

[keokrusader]

Where is this magical land of PlayStation and table tennis?

Will see how you feel when your pay and holidays are wrong because your manager hasn't had time to code workforce.

Your empathy astounds me....we are talking about people's livelihoods and mortgages.

[Welsh-Hugh]

Don't you have Playstation in canteen  and table tennis in your site? Your missing out .
Managers in our site don't key holidays now. We have a clerk for that. Managers are always too busy to look at holiday availability let alone book them. Your right though. I don't have emphathy. Managers have had the easy life for too long.

[keokrusader]

I disagree....being contracted to 36 hours a week yet working upwards of 45 is hardly the easy life.

Can only assume this clerk must work 7 days a week then?

[Welsh-Hugh]

My DC managers work 8 hours max. You really are loosing out

[optout]

M1lktrayMan

you may find this interesting (note especially the last two paragraphs of the page). BUT do not just read them in isolation, read them as part of the whole article.

https://www.harpermacleod.co.uk/hm-insights/2013/october/when-should-a-refusal-be-viewed-as-unreasonable/

[keokrusader]

My DC managers work 8 hours max. You really are loosing out

Which is still almost an hour a day more than they are contracted to....

[M1lktrayman]

Many thanks for that link optout...
What we are being told though is if we are matched to the new roles we are not in a redundancy situation and also not elligible for any trial; despite the substantive changes to job descriptions and duties. It is basically take it or **** off.

[Arizonarugby]

My DC managers work 8 hours max. You really are loosing out

Welsh-Hugh you really do need to get your facts right, managers are contracted to work 36 hours , but the shift are 7.5 hours on top of this there's a 30 minute shift 'handed over' at the start of shift and 30 minute (minimum) shift debrief at the end of shift

[Welsh-Hugh]

Don't make me laugh. In our DC. 5 mind most handover. Managers walk into work and go home with workers in my DC. But don't worry if you ever need to find a manager first place to look is smoking shelters or coffee machine. They have had it too good too long and I stand by my words . Last post on this from me

[Duracell]

What i can not understand is them stating the addition of making us duty managers doesnt constitute enough of a change to make us redundant.  Let alone all of the additional changes to the role by them restructuring h&s and training.

I dont want to be a duty manager with responsibilities for the whole depot!

It is my belief if challenged it would be successful.

The Scoring Process can't be Relative to the current Role, regardless of the Selection method Suitability is to the New Management Role, there is no Credability in any claim that the current role plays a part in the selection process is a nonsense, which is why the criteria and selection is based on personal attributes of the individual, they would never be able to make people redundant based on their performance in the current role, as it it will cease to exist, you can't lay off a person saying " you can't do a role well enough even though that role is going", Nonsense.

Hence scoring on Personal Attributes, the only role that then becomes relative is the New One.
If the company can lay off, due to the fact that an individual doesn't have the personal attributes for the New role and New tasks then the New Role is Significantly Different, Ergo also different enough for someone to not want to do it and their current role is redundant and should be granted an exit Package.

It needs challenging, those that leave with nothing because they do not wish to continue in the New Role should explore constructive dismissal in my opinion.
Business Moving with the times and needing to become leaner is Credible, Manipulating restructures to avoid redundancy rights is very Naughty.

The New Management Role is Significantly Different not least having increased responsibility. If people do not wish to take on the role and can't stay as they are, then they are redundant to the Business, the company should give them an exit package.

Even P Clarke got one of those and look at the mess he made.

[optout]

M1lktrayMan

...maybe. BUT, who is it that decides (or has already decided) that it is a 'matching' role?

and exactly what Duracell says,

I can't see tesco wanting to get into a fight over this, and even if they did they must know that their chances of winning are not the best, and what have you got to lose by pushing???

[optout]

..if you or anybody else does 'push' let us know the response (taking care over anonymity issues).

Bear in mind you will (in all likelihood) have to push to the point at-least to where their legal department becomes involved.

[notsofunny]

I think what needs to be done is ask them to put it on paper to say that it is not a redundancy situation , This at least will make them think,
I don't think they will come out with saying this them self with out being pushed,
Can see them placing some options on the table that they like, and hoping most will take them up , with out having to show there hand,

[optout]

so none of this is in writing anywhere yet?

[Arizonarugby]

What i can not understand is them stating the addition of making us duty managers doesnt constitute enough of a change to make us redundant.  Let alone all of the additional changes to the role by them restructuring h&s and training.

I dont want to be a duty manager with responsibilities for the whole depot!

It is my belief if challenged it would be successful.

The Scoring Process can't be Relative to the current Role, regardless of the Selection method Suitability is to the New Management Role, there is no Credability in any claim that the current role plays a part in the selection process is a nonsense, which is why the criteria and selection is based on personal attributes of the individual, they would never be able to make people redundant based on their performance in the current role, as it it will cease to exist, you can't lay off a person saying " you can't do a role well enough even though that role is going", Nonsense.

Hence scoring on Personal Attributes, the only role that then becomes relative is the New One.
If the company can lay off, due to the fact that an individual doesn't have the personal attributes for the New role and New tasks then the New Role is Significantly Different, Ergo also different enough for someone to not want to do it and their current role is redundant and should be granted an exit Package.

It needs challenging, those that leave with nothing because they do not wish to continue in the New Role should explore constructive dismissal in my opinion.
Business Moving with the times and needing to become leaner is Credible, Manipulating restructures to avoid redundancy rights is very Naughty.

The New Management Role is Significantly Different not least having increased responsibility. If people do not wish to take on the role and can't stay as they are, then they are redundant to the Business, the company should give them an exit package.

Even P Clarke got one of those and look at the mess he made.

Duracell, without wanting to be critical of the unions part in this whole process , is that (challenging) what the company are proposing to implement.....all we get back from the "consultation "  meeting is a endless stream of frequently asked questions (which are always balanced in the favour of the company) i.e. Question  Will there be workshops to write CV's / interview skills  Answer  no job centre plus provide this service .... Question, will voluntary redundancy be offered Answer no we want to retain the best managers and the challenge from the union to these derogatory response were in the words of Uriah Heep were
"keep yourself down." I am very umble ...., Master Tesco" ....!!!!
Chapter XXXIX

[Welsh-Hugh]

It will be interesting to see who stays and goes  in my DC. Some managers are good. Some just drink coffee and smoke all day. It will be good to see who stays. If the company say they are keeping the best then surely that's good. The bad ones need to go. Maybe the company have finally listened to what matters to you results. Time will tell

[Arizonarugby]

It will be interesting to see who stays and goes  in my DC. Some managers are good. Some just drink coffee and smoke all day. It will be good to see who stays. If the company say they are keeping the best then surely that's good. The bad ones need to go. Maybe the company have finally listened to what matters to you results. Time will tell

Welsh-Hugh , the whole point that I and others have been trying to make is that the process of deciding who stays and goes is based on the opinion of the "senior team" and If were being honest these are the very people who are more likely than not going to be working "shoulder to shoulder" with the managers you speak ill of, (in either the smoke shed or at the coffee machine )!!!!

[blutopia]

M1lktrayMan

...maybe. BUT, who is it that decides (or has already decided) that it is a 'matching' role?

and exactly what Duracell says,

I can't see tesco wanting to get into a fight over this, and even if they did they must know that their chances of winning are not the best, and what have you got to lose by pushing???

If whether a new role matches is disputed, ultimately it would be for an industrial tribunal to decide.  Duracell makes a very good point that the company could be manipulating restructuring to avoid redundancies.  We should beware of them pushing the 'reasonable alternative' (be it contracted hours or role) to the limit and scaring those affected into a take it or leave it choice.  The company is likely to bank on no-one going to the trouble of a tribunal claim and those that do would need to have real justification that the change is unreasonable - not just that they don't want to do it.

[Arizonarugby]

Shouldn't the union be challenging this issue in our behalf ? for example you wouldn't employ an account and expect ( put simply) add up your own sums !!!!!