John Lewis considering cutting 11,000 jobs after
slashing redundancy terms
Exclusive: Latest turnaround plan could see thousands
made redundant over five years after group halves its redundancy pay
Sarah
Butler
@whatbutlersaw
Sat 27 Jan
2024 07.45 GMT
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/27/john-lewis-waitrose-jobs-cuts-redundancy-pay
The owner
of John Lewis and Waitrose is considering cutting up to 11,000 staff jobs in
the next five years, after the retail group slashed redundancy terms this week.
Sources
said at least 10% of the staff-owned business’s 76,000-strong workforce could
go across the group’s head office, supermarkets and department stores.
Department
heads are working on plans and the number of roles in the business is expected
to be gradually reduced over several years via redundancies and not replacing
staff who leave, sources said.
John Lewis
warned about potential job cuts in March last year as part of a plan to reduce
costs and use technology to improve efficiency. The group has already cut
thousands of jobs partly through store closures, including 16 department stores
and several supermarkets, over the past few years.
One
well-placed source said John Lewis executives had discussed cutting as many as
11,000 roles as part of its latest turnaround plan – amid rising pay and other
costs and poor sales. Another said this figure had been briefed to select staff
by some managers as the company battles to bounce back from a £230m full-year
loss.
The scale
of potential job cuts emerged after the John Lewis Partnership (JLP), which is
owned by its staff via a trust, wrote to workers this week telling them it was
cutting the terms of its redundancy package in half – offering one week of pay
a year of service instead of two for anyone being made redundant from 1
February.
One member
of staff, known as partners because of they co-own the business, said the
announcement of a cut was particularly galling as it came shortly after a
number of senior executives had left on the more generous deal.
JLP told
staff it was making the change as the current package was “higher than typical
market practice and comes at a very high cost”. It said it needed to “free up
cash” with a “more affordable” policy.
The company
offers the “partnership redundancy pay” package on top of statutory redundancy
pay which is set by the government at one week a year of service for over 22s
and 1.5 weeks for those over 41, capped at a maximum of just over £19,000.
In an
internal memo issued on Thursday, first reported by the Telegraph, the John
Lewis Partnership said: “Against all of our competing priorities for
investment, it’s fair to say that the high cost of redundancy pay has been one
of the things that’s prevented us from moving as quickly as we’ve wanted to
transform ourselves for the future, and has restricted our ability to invest
more in pay.”
It added
that it was raising the minimum redundancy payment for those who did not
qualify for the full partnership package from one week’s pay to four weeks to
“better support those with shorter service who are affected by redundancy”.
The
announcement prompted a flurry of furious posts on the group’s internal
messaging board with one worker saying: “Another example of major changes being
made which will affect partners without a dialogue with partners.”
Some called
for an emergency meeting of the group’s partnership council, which gives the
owner-workers a democratic voice via elected representatives from across the
business.
One member
of staff told the Guardian: “We are held up as a better way of doing business
and this just sits uncomfortably particularly when you take into account the
recent wave of leadership level [redundancies].”
A
spokesperson for JLP said: “What we are doing is cost-neutral and it is a
rebalancing because any saving on redundancy pay will be directly reinvested
into partner pay.”
The news on
cutting redundancy terms was sent out via an email and then posted on the
company intranet with staff not informed of any discussion at the partnership
council.
JLP said
the issue had been put to the council and the group’s democratic processes had
been followed but the meeting had not been livestreamed to staff.

Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário