A number of “indirect” positions have been placed at risk of redundancy due to “difficult market conditions within the industry”. This has forced the reorganisation and rationalisation of the business which necessates a reduction of staffing levels.

Whilst this is the reason provided in writing, some staff have been informed verbally that this need has occurred due to a third party who is very keen in taking over the same company, will not consider it whilst the overhead is so high. So the real reason is that the redundancies are to make the company more attractive to the third party and not due to poor market conditions. This could be supported by the particular positions that are considered to be no longer required.

Is this conflict in justification satisfactory or could there be cause for complaint from those nominated as at risk?

Again, your support is very much appreciated.

Craig Lewis