• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content


Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

Alternatives to redundancy






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Find some examples! E.g. Marchington and Wilkinson, Human Resource Management at Work 2008
  • Philpott, J., 2010. Labour cost savings from alternatives to redundancy . Impact , Issue 27. pp24-27.
  • Appelbaum, S.H., & Donia, M. 2001. The realistic downsizing preview: a multiple case study, part I: the methodology and results of data collection. Career Development International , 6 (3), pp 128-148

Alternatives to redundancy Alternatives to redundancy Presentation Transcript

  • Alternatives to Redundancy
    • Labour cost savings whilst ensuring redundancy remains a last resort.
    • Short time working
    • Annual Leave Purchase Scheme
    • Multi-skilled employees
    • Organizational Flexibility & Flexible Working
    • Share admin services with partner organisations.
  • Shared Services
    • The Trust has strategic partner organisations and in theory could share some core functions such as HR, Occupational Health, Payroll, and IT.
    • Sharing of pathology, maternity and pharmaceutical services is also an option.
    • Current partner organisations are Papworth NHS Trust, Cambridge & Peterborough NHS Trust, and The University of Cambridge.
    • Source: Annual Report & Accounts 2009/10 Cambridge University Hospital’s NHS Foundation Trust.
  • Shared Services
    • Papworth Hospital is ideally placed to share services as it is to move to the Cambridge Biocampus in the near future.
    • Cambridge University has a major presence on the campus, as does Cancer Research UK and the MRC.
    • The Regional Blood and Transplant service is also on site.
  • Shared Services
    • Staff expenses for 2010 were £312.5 million (up from £290.2 million on the previous year).
    • Administrative and Estates account for 1,485 staff in 2010 (up from 1,398 in 2009) out of a total of 7,361 (6,977 in 2009).
  • Shared Services v Out Sourcing
    • CIPD survey in 2009 found the out-sourcing HR reduced costs in 90% of cases.
    • In practice outsourcing of HR does not always run smoothly (BP & Exult/Hewitt, C&W & Accentre)
    • Survey evidence suggests that out-sourcing often disappoints in practice
    • Sources: Kew & Stredwick, 2010 Human Resource Management in a Business Context; pp 27-28 CIPD London.
    • Taylor, S. 2010 Resourcing & Talent Management; pp 66 CIPD London.
  • Shared Services
    • The NHS often shares HR and other services between Primary Care Trusts (PCT’s).
    • Advantages: cost savings in terms of space allocation and staff resources. Greater efficiency. Larger pool of professional staff.
    • Disadvantages: Potential loss of local focus, potential loss of quality, loss of managerial focus on services. (Redman et al, Fulop et al ). May be seen as a retrograde step (return to old Health Authority type management).
  • Savings
    • CIPD Research shows that on average, redundancy saves 40% less per employee than freezing recruitment or terminating temporary agency worker contracts. (Philpott, 2010)
    • The Trust uses temporary agency staff (363 during 2009/10) and these accounted for £8.4m (2.6%) of the employee costs for 2009/10. Whilst not an insignificant amount, not an area where large savings can be made.
  • Redundancy Survivors
    • A key element of the redundancy process is to minimise ‘survivor syndrome’.
    • Three issues are key:
        • Maintain employee confidence by showing that the redundancy programme is being undertaken for the ‘right reasons’;
        • Ensure the duration of the programme is minimal but also effective so that it doesn’t need repeating;
        • Ensure that the terminated staff are treated with care dignity and respect- this sends a signal to the surviving employees that they too would be treated well should the process need to be repeated. (Appelbaum & Donia, 2001).