L&G told the media this week they plan to reduce staff numbers by about 10%, or about 1,000 jobs, by the middle of 2027. Many of these will be voluntary redundancies. There are some comments below from Mayo Wynne Baxter.
IE comment; As tech platforms and AI begin to automate many tasks across the insurance chain, Admiral also announced 500 job cuts across its UK operation. Many of Admiral’s staff work in South Wales, where well paid secure employment necessary for mortgage or rent applications is hard to find. The Govt adding more employers NI tax on each job doesn’t help of course.
The reduction in insurance admin jobs from quote to claims is an inevitable process however as AI gradually makes an impact on every aspect of society. Companies who don’t embrace AI platforms will pay higher overheads to reach the same consumers. Big employers like supermarkets, insurers, delivery and distribution companies, even the WFH/sick leave heavy public sector, will all have to face reality eventually. For politicians seeking to tax jobs – and hit companies who create jobs with higher CGT and CT – there is a day of reckoning approaching.
Ross Spiller, solicitor at Mayo Wynne Baxter, said:
Starting with voluntary redundancies may reduce some of the risks for Legal & General, but employers shouldn’t fall into the trap of thinking a voluntary process is risk-free.
Even where employees are being invited to put themselves forward, employers still need to follow their redundancy procedures and carry out genuine and meaningful consultation.
They are also not obliged to accept every application for voluntary redundancy, for example, where someone has skills or expertise that are critical to the business, but that needs to be made clear from the outset.
The risks can increase if voluntary redundancies don’t deliver the numbers required and an employer then moves to compulsory job cuts.
That is when decisions around selection pools and criteria can come under much greater scrutiny.
Employers need to think carefully about who is placed in a selection pool and ensure any selection criteria are objective and measurable.
Subjective measures such as ‘organisational fit’ can be difficult to defend, while apparently neutral criteria such as attendance records can potentially discriminate against employees with disabilities.
Crucially, consultation cannot simply be a box-ticking exercise after a decision has effectively already been made.
Employers need to be able to show that consultation was genuine and meaningful, with a real aim of exploring whether redundancies could be avoided.
Be the first to comment