The situation
A change in the business's direction meant the shape of the team no longer worked. Two roles, as they existed, were no longer needed. The owner knew a restructure was right but was anxious about doing it fairly, and worried it would be read as targeting individuals.
Why it was difficult
A restructure that loses people is one of the highest-risk things an owner can do. Get the reason, the selection or the consultation wrong, and 'restructure' becomes an unfair dismissal claim. It also cannot be used as a cover for removing particular individuals.
What Samantha did
- Established a genuine business reason and designed the new structure first, before looking at people
- Identified honestly which roles were redundant and which were simply changing
- Ran fair selection where roles overlapped, against objective criteria
- Held proper individual consultation and actively explored redeployment and alternatives
- Supported the exits with dignity, and documented every stage
The outcome
The restructure was completed on a sound, defensible basis. The two people affected left fairly, with the process handled properly, and no claim was brought. The remaining team understood the new structure and why it had changed.
Restructure completed. Fair exits, no claims.
What this means for you
When a restructure means losing people, the process is everything. A genuine reason, fair selection, real consultation and a proper look at alternatives are what keep it clean and defensible.
Related support
Restructure support →Anonymised. Sector, names and identifying details have been removed or changed. Outcomes reflect the specific circumstances of each case and are not a guarantee of any particular result.