Redeployment Procedural Guidance

3.1    Permission to Fill
Prior to advertising, the recruiting Institution will require Permission to fill for the vacancy in question. Institutions will continue to request Permission to fill via the Recruitment Administration System (RAS), alongside any existing internal processes that are specific to the Institution, managed outside of RAS. Further details on the Permission to fill process can be found within the Recruitment Guidance.

3.2    Advertising
Positions should be advertised in line with the Recruitment Policy and the associated Recruitment Guidance. As a minimum, it is expected that the position will be advertised on the Job Opportunities website for a minimum period of two weeks, which will enable redeployees an appropriate period of time to submit their application.

There are limited instances where it is accepted that a vacancy does not need to be advertised (such as for roles where a research grant has been provided for a named candidate, or managerial or exceptional reasons). More information on circumstances where advertising is not required can be found in the Recruitment Guidance. The University also reserves the right to permit employees affected by local restructures under the Organisational Change Policy to apply for vacancies which arise under sections 3.3.6 (i)-(iv) of that policy, before these vacancies are made available to other employees, including priority candidates under this framework. 

3.3    Submitting an application
Priority candidates will be responsible for identifying, and applying for, vacancies as part of the Redeployment Framework. The line managers of priority candidates are encouraged to support this process by highlighting vacancies that might be suitable, where possible. Priority candidates are encouraged to sign up to Weekly Updates on the Job Opportunities website, which will provide an email summary of any new vacancies posted within the University. 

Priority candidates will be required to complete the online application for the position, in the same way that other applicants will. The application format (CHRIS/5 or CHRIS/6) will be determined by the position being advertised, and will be consistent for all applicants. 

Within the application, a number of questions are included which relate specifically to priority applicants and support the implementation of the Redeployment Framework. These are: 

1)    Are you a current employee of the University? (This does not include colleges or CUPA.)
2)    Are you considered a priority candidate, as per the Redeployment Framework?
3)    Which of the following applies to your situation?
-    At risk of redundancy whilst on maternity, adoption or shared parental leave
-    At risk of redundancy due to organisational change (with 2 or more years’ continuous service)
-    At risk of redundancy due to the expiry of a fixed-term contract or of funding for an open-ended contract with limited funding within the next 20 weeks (with 2 or more years’ continuous service)
-    Following formal recommendation in consultation with Occupational Health
-    Formally recommended for redeployment as a result of a formal procedure (e.g. grievance).
-    None of the above
4)    Please confirm your current Department, Faculty or Institution:
5)    Please confirm your current grade:

Question 1 is asked of all candidates, as a means of identifying who is submitting an application as an internal candidate, and those who are external to the University. The response to Question 1 will determine (via the use of conditional formatting) whether Question 2 appears. Subsequently, the response for Question 2 will then determine whether the rest of the questions appear. This enables the University to obtain the necessary information that enables the delivery of the Redeployment Framework, without taking the same information from those who are not priority applicants.

It should be noted that these questions are included on the application form to ensure that the recruiting institution can deliver the correct priority access (as detailed within this procedural guidance) as part of the recruitment process. After this point, the rest of the application form / process will be the same as it was before the implementation of the Redeployment Framework.

Having reviewed the information on the application form, if the recruiting Institution is unsure whether the candidate is a priority applicant (despite the applicant highlighting that they are on the application form), the Institution should contact their HR Business Partnering Team in the first instance, who will be able to advise accordingly.

3.4    Selection Panels
Under the Redeployment Framework, the selection panel should be the same as it would be if there were no priority applicants for the role. As a minimum, it is expected that the selection panel will comprise more than one person, and where possible will be both gender and ethnically diverse. 

Some posts at the University (for instance established posts) require selection by a Board of Electors, Selection Committee, Appointing Body or other panel (see the Recruitment Guidance for more information on where these are required). 

3.5    Selection Methods and Criteria
Prior to considering applications for the role, the recruiting Institution should define what selection criteria they are going to assess and how these will be assessed. For instance, where written communication is an essential criterion, this might be assessed through the applicant’s application, whereas verbal communication might be assessed at interview. Institutions can use the HR6 – Selection Criteria template to plan and record the selection criteria being used for their particular vacancy. 

The essential criteria are used to outline the minimum knowledge, skills and experience to be considered suitable for the post. For further detail on essential criteria, please see the Recruitment Guidance. It is important to note that the requirement of a specific criterion to be essential cannot be changed once the position is advertised.

It is also important to agree, before the longlisting / shortlisting process, what method will be used to evaluate how well the application meets the criteria for the role and apply this consistently to all applications. Scoring systems are commonly used as a systematic means of indicating how well a candidate has met a particular selection criterion and can help to simplify the process, as well as making it more consistent and objective. More information on scoring applications can be found within the Recruitment Guidance.

3.6    Longlisting / Shortlisting
The suggested process for the longlisting / shortlisting of applicants can be found within the Recruitment Guidance, or within the Recruitment Short Guide: Longlisting and Shortlisting. It is recommended that this process applies when a priority candidate has applied for the role.

Members of the selection panel should review applications against the essential selection criteria. Any candidates who fail to meet one or more of the criteria should be rejected. Priority applicants, however, should also be assessed on whether they could meet the criteria with a reasonable amount of training. 

Whether training is reasonable will depend on a number of factors, such as; the nature and extent of the training required, the time-frames that are applicable for the redeployee to complete the training before they can perform the post to the required standard, and to what extent the training period will affect the delivery of any time-critical work. What constitutes training might include on-the-job mentoring, courses or formal qualifications. 

When considering whether a priority candidate could meet the criteria with reasonable training should be objectively and consistently applied across all priority candidate applications, as appropriate. 

When conducting longlisting/shortlisting, the University recommends the use of a scoring system to assess how closely a candidate meets the relevant criteria (a suggested scoring system can be found within the Recruitment Guidance). The scoring system should be agreed in advance of the selection process and applied consistently. Traditionally, at the end of the longlisting / shortlisting process, departments would take through the highest scoring candidates (a manageable number) to the next stage(s) of the selection process. Under the University’s Redeployment Framework, any priority applicant who meets the essential criteria for the post (or could do so with a reasonable amount of training) must be offered an interview for the role. This requirement applies regardless of the number of non-priority candidates who sufficiently meet the essential criteria (or could do so with a reasonable amount of training) for the role.

Institutions must create, and retain, a record of the selection decisions made at longlisting and/or shortlisting stage. This will often be in the form of the HR11 – Selection Results Grid. Where Web Recruitment has been used to receive applications, a version of the HR11 can be downloaded, which is automatically pre-populated with all applicant names and whether they are a priority candidate or not.

It is important to emphasise that shortlisting decisions should be made solely on the basis of facts and evidence presented in applications which are relevant to the selection criteria. Any prior knowledge of the applicant that is not included in the submission should not be used in the decision making process.

3.7    Interviews and Assessment
In order to enable objective decision making, the usual selection methods should be used to determine candidates’ suitability for the post. As a minimum requirement, a panel interview should form part of the assessment process. More information on the constitution of the panel, and guidance on conducting interviews, can be found in the Recruitment Policy and Guidance.  

The assessment process should be the same for priority applicants as it would be for non-priority applicants. For example, if a non-priority applicant would be expected to deliver a presentation and then a panel interview as part of the assessment process, priority applicants would be asked to do the same. 

During the assessment process, applicants must be assessed objectively against the selection criteria which have been agreed in advance. Judgements must be based on evidence gathered during the assessment process only. 

Wherever possible, priority candidates should be interviewed prior to other candidates to enable them to demonstrate their suitability to departments ahead of others (although departments are not required to wait until they have interviewed a priority candidate before they can advertise the post). Where possible, the interview should be on a different day, as this will prevent the need to interview non-priority candidates if one of the priority candidates is deemed suitable for the role. Where convening the selection panel over multiple days is not possible, priority candidates should be scheduled for their assessment first in the day, with non-priority candidates scheduled afterwards.

To ensure fairness and objectivity, it is recommended that selection panel members work individually to allocate provisional scores for each candidate in the first instance, using the scoring system agreed in advance. Areas of disagreement should then be discussed and final scores agreed. Comments against each criterion must reflect the evidence presented, such as examples of past performance, relevant skills, experience and attitudes. The method for combining the scores from each assessor should have been agreed in advance. 

Institutions can use the Selection Assessments Record template (HR10) to record their selection decisions. Further guidance is available in the Recruitment Guidance.

3.8    Family Leave 

An employee who is pregnant or on maternity, adoption or shared parental leave who is at risk of redundancy is legally entitled to be offered a suitable alternative vacancy where one exists ahead of other employees (including other priority applicants, as listed in section 2.1-2.3 above). This includes positions with an exemption under 4.18 of the Redeployment Framework.  See sections 4.22 - 4.27 of the Redeployment Framework for full details.  This applies where the new post is (i) suitable in relation to the employee and appropriate for them to do in the circumstances and (ii) the new contractual provisions are not substantially less favourable than those of the previous contract.  It should be noted that, in order to be considered a priority candidate, employees on maternity, adoption or shared parental leave do not need to have accrued 2 years’ service.  

If such an applicant applies for the role, the recruiting Institution should initially contact the relevant HR Business Partnering Team to discuss whether the role meets criteria (i) and (ii) above and can be offered without interview, or whether an assessment is required to determine whether the vacancy is suitable and appropriate in the circumstances. 

3.9    Appointment
Following the assessment of priority applicants under 3.7: Interviews and Assessment, a decision should be made as to whether one (or more) of the priority applicants are suitable for the role. 

Where the recruiting manager is satisfied that, following the usual selection arrangements, the priority candidate has the capability, skills, knowledge and experience to perform the role (or could do so with reasonable training if necessary) to the required standard, they should be offered the post (see section 3.12 Accepting Redeployment and appointment process). However, see sections 4.18 of the Redeployment Framework for details of where the University reserves the right to select other candidates ahead of a priority candidate.

If more than one priority candidate is appointable, measured against the requirements for the role, the recruiting manager is advised to take advice from the relevant HR Business Partnering Team as to whom they should give priority. The general expectation would be that the position is offered to the priority applicant who scored the highest as part of the assessment process. However, there may be an order of priority in some cases (for instance where section 3.8: Family Leave applies). 

Otherwise, where two (or more) priority candidates are deemed to be evenly matched as part of the assessment process, the Appointing Body may deem it appropriate to conduct further selection activities as a means of identifying the most appropriate priority candidate for the role. If the Appointing Body is still unsure on who to offer the vacancy to, they are encouraged to seek advice from the HR Business Partnering Team.

Where no priority applicant has been deemed appointable, they should be rejected, and feedback should be provided detailing the areas where they didn’t sufficiently demonstrate their suitability. Further information on providing feedback under the Redeployment Framework can be found in 3.14 – Providing Feedback. 

In the case where no priority applicants are deemed to be appointable, the Institution can go back to the original pool of non-priority applicants.

3.10    Exceptional Circumstances
The University reserves the right to appoint the most suitable candidate, whether or not they are a priority candidate, in some limited circumstances (See section 4.18: Exceptional circumstances of the Redeployment Framework). Such circumstances include:
 
•    Research forms a significant part of a post and it is part of the essential criteria that the appointee is at the forefront of the relevant field (this would exclude research posts which are neither leading or critical to the relevant research project and the majority of research support roles);
•    The post requires teaching expertise at a level that is at the forefront of academic practice;
•    The post is a senior post (Grade 11 +) where the post-holder’s performance could have a significant impact on the success of the University, or a significant part of the University.

The application of 4.18 will be managed locally at Institution level. The recruiting manager will provide a business case to an appropriate senior member of staff within the Institution (such as the Head of Institution) for approval. Institutions can use the Redeployment Framework Exceptional Circumstances Case template for this purpose, otherwise, the case should detail the following:

• Details of the position, department and recruiting manager; and
• How the position falls within section 4.18 of the Redeployment Framework.

Senior colleagues who are considering exemption requests should consider each case objectively and on its merits. It should be noted that any decision that cannot be shown to be properly justified may expose the University to allegations that the resulting redundancy (or other termination of employment) is unlawful.

If an Institution is unsure whether section 4.18 can be applied to a particular role, their HR Business Partnering Team is available to advise.  

Written approval for the application of section 4.18 of the Redeployment Framework to a role should be obtained, prior to the position being advertised and should be stored locally in line with the current retention periods for recruitment documentation. It should be recorded in the Recruitment Administration System (RAS: Step 4: Redeployment) to enable central monitoring of its use. 

3.11    Candidate Assessment – how the application of section 4.18 of the Redeployment Framework works in practice
Where section 4.18 of the Redeployment Framework applies, the normal recruitment process, as documented within Recruitment Policy and Guidance should be followed. For the avoidance of doubt, priority candidates who meet the essential criteria for the post (or could do so with a reasonable amount of training) remain entitled to an interview for the post, even where 4.18 applies. The difference is that a stronger non-priority candidate may be selected after the selection process is complete.  Priority applicants and non-priority candidates would be taken forward to the interview stage at the same time.

The final selection of the preferred candidate can only be made after all the selection activities are complete. The appointing body should review the performance of all the candidates throughout the whole selection programme and the decision must be the collective judgement of all the selectors.

The only exception to appointing the strongest applicant for the role is where one (or more) of the priority applicants is on a form of Family Leave or return from family leave (as per section 3.8: Family Leave) and the post is a suitable alternative vacancy for them. In this case, the priority applicant should be offered the role, even if there are stronger candidates (see 3.8 above).

After selection activities have been completed and a decision has been made, a record should be made of which applicants have been rejected and which will be made an offer of employment.

3.12    Accepting redeployment and appointment process

The appointment process for priority candidates is the same as that of a non-priority applicant. Therefore, it is expected that the candidate will be offered the role (either verbally, followed up in writing through the use of the manual or system-generated offer letter or through the use of the manual or system-generated offer letter), allowing the applicant the time to respond to the offer. 

Where a priority candidate has been offered the role, it is expected that the priority candidate will withdraw any other applications that are in progress at the University and will discuss possible start dates with their current institution. It is expected that, through constructive discussion, that the start date agreed will be accepted by all parties. 

The submission of the new starter details to the HR Recruitment Administration team will be the same as it would for a non-priority candidate. The details of the appointment should be submitted through the Web Recruitment system. 

3.13    Rejections
Where a priority applicant has been unsuccessful in their application for the role, the recruiting manager should speak to their relevant HR Business Partnering Team for advice to ensure that the decision can be substantiated and appropriate feedback can be provided (as per 4.14 of the Redeployment Framework). Any decision that cannot be shown to be properly justified may expose the University to allegations that the resulting redundancy (or other termination of employment) is unlawful.

Where possible, priority candidates should be informed orally in the first instance of the outcome of the selection process. This should be then confirmed in writing, with feedback offered. Further information on providing feedback under the Redeployment Framework can be found in 3.14: Providing Feedback.

Should a priority candidate decline an offer of redeployment, they should notify the recruiting manager without delay, setting out reasons for their decision. They may continue to be treated as a priority candidate under the Redeployment Framework up to and including their last day of service or until they have accepted an alternative post with the University or entered into a voluntary severance arrangement, whichever is earlier. 

3.14    Providing Feedback
An important part of the redeployment process is the opportunity for priority applicants to receive good quality and constructive feedback following an application. Providing good quality feedback will enable the applicant to identify areas for development or areas where their performance might be improved for future interviews. The key principles of providing feedback are outlined below:

• The selection panel should agree which member of the panel is going to provide applicant feedback. This would normally be the selection panel chair;
• Priority candidates who are unsuccessful in their application are entitled to receive feedback from the recruiting manager upon request. This includes at the shortlisting stage;
• Feedback should be focused on the applicant that has requested the feedback and comparisons with other applicant’s responses should be avoided;
• The University does not prescribe whether feedback should be given orally or in writing, therefore, it is advised that an assessment is made to determine the best approach for the circumstances, including the time available to provide feedback, the candidates involved and the advantages / disadvantages of each approach.
• It is important that only relevant and objective points that are supported by evidence are discussed whilst giving feedback and that emphasis is placed upon the fact that the feedback is based on the decision of the panel against the criteria for the role and on the evidence presented on the day. The aim should be to demonstrate the extent to which the applicant met the requirements of the job, but to also provide some constructive points on areas for development. 
• Where a suitable priority candidate has been offered a position in favour of a suitable non-priority candidate, feedback to the non-priority candidate may include that the post was offered to a suitable priority candidate in this case. 

3.15    Screening Checks
As with traditional recruitment (internal or otherwise), there is an expectation that screening checks will be carried out for priority candidates. As a minimum, these checks should cover: 

• Right to work in the UK;
• Qualifications;
• Internal Referencing;
• Health Declaration.

References are essential part of the recruitment process, and are equally important to the University’s Redeployment process. A minimum of one reference should be sought from the current line manager or Institution. If any further references are required to support decision making and ensure suitability for the role, these can only be sought after obtaining written agreement from the redeployee. 

The requirement for higher level screening checks (such as a DBS or basic disclosure check) should be based on the position that is being recruited into. For example, if the new role requires a Basic Disclosure, and the priority candidate has not had a basic disclosure in their current or previous roles at the University, a new check should be conducted. The principles of the above example are applicable to any of the higher level checks that might be required for the role. More information on processing higher level screening checks can be found in the Recruitment Guidance.  

The decision as to whether a check is deemed as satisfactory will be at discretion of the University. Where a check is deemed not to be satisfactory for a priority candidate, the consequences of this will depend on:

• The check concerned;
• The reason for the check (check for a new employee, a recheck for an existing employee or a check for an existing employee in a new post);
• Relevant legislation;
• The post.

The matter will be reviewed by either the HR Business Partnering Team, Resourcing Team or the University Security Officer (as appropriate), before being referred to the Assistant Director/Director of HR for objective assessment and a decision. Input will be requested from the Institution as appropriate. 

The following provisions apply to employees at risk of redundancy:

• An employee is not dismissed where their contract is reviewed or they start alternative employment with the University within 4 weeks of their current contract ending and where the offer is made before the end of their current contract.  Where the renewed or new terms and conditions differ wholly or in part from the employee’s existing terms, an employee has a statutory right to a trial period of four weeks during which time they and the employer can assess the employee’s suitability for the new role. 
• The trial period may be extended by agreement of both parties, but only for the purposes of retraining.
• If during the trial period the employment is terminated (or notice to terminate) by the University for a reason connected to the change in roles, the employee will be treated as having been dismissed by reason of redundancy on the date their original contract ended and will remain eligible for a redundancy payment (if they were eligible for one). The same will apply if the alternative employment was not “suitable”, and the employee nonetheless attempted a trial period but terminated the employment (or gave notice to terminate it) during the trial period.
• If an employee unreasonably refuses an offer of suitable alternative employment (or unreasonably terminates or gives notice to terminate the contract during the trial period), they will be treated as having been dismissed but will lose their right to a redundancy payment (if they were eligible for one), including any entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment.  They will also lose their right to claim statutory redundancy pay if they do not give notice within the 4-week trial period.
• When considering whether or not an alternative role is suitable, regard should be given to the employee’s skills and experience, and the terms of the alternative role, including how the status, place of work, duties, pay, hours and responsibility compare with those of the previous role. Whether the refusal of suitable alternative employment is reasonable or unreasonable will depend on the particular employee and their circumstances. The reasonableness of an employee’s decision to refuse suitable alternative work should be assessed from the perspective of the employee at the time the decision to refuse the offer was made.
• If a trial period is successful, employment in the role will continue and this will be confirmed in writing to the employee.  The employee will no longer be entitled to a redundancy payment (if they were eligible for one), including any entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment.
• Employees at risk of redundancy by reason of organisational change should refer to the Organisational Change Policy for further details.