The use of 'slotting' in employment?

[H-S]

What reasons other than the new role being very similar to their old role could mean you are automatically slotted to a job in a new structure at work?

[buildersmate]

You'd better say a bit more about the context. This terminology is not in widespread use in HR. Who has done what to you in your job?

[China Doll]

buildersmate - The word has been used recently in the consultation process that I am involved in. Essentially we have 7 band 5 PA roles in my area and they now propose to have only 4 band 5 roles. That would mean that anyone effected by the changes could apply for any of the four remaining band 5 roles (or indeed other band 4 roles)in my area and throughout my division. If the staff who are effected do not get any of the roles they apply for then as there are enough jobs in the division (no redudencies policy so not anticipated) they would be effectively 'slotted' in to the remaining posts based on their skills and qualifications etc... posts that are currently being done by temps who have done the role for a couple of years in some cases who would have liked to apply for the job properly but as the Trust has never advertised them the temps currently doing them are last in the pecking order (and basically without a voice) as the permenant staff have to have first dibs. So I think this is possibly what the poster means by slotting in.

[boxtops]

I agree with you, china, but we are both in the NHS system so we understand the same definition. The new NHS organisations have new jobs and they try their best to slot in existing staff, to maintain continuity (and so as not to have to pay out redundancy too).

[China Doll]

True. I expect it's probably not wide spread use in the private sector... Mind you, I also think it's very bad practice for the services involved. If you've had someone good doing the job very well for a couple of years who through no fault of their own has not been able to apply, then I fail to see why having someone 'slotted' in to the role purely because they are a permenant employee, who may or may not be very peeved and unmotivated, holds any benefit to the service at all. If we are to have a competative interview process then it should be just that, competative and open to all current staff, including temps if they have been there longer than a year in my opinion.

That said, I am in the position to be one of the band 5 roles that has remained as a band 5 and I wonder whether my opinion would be quite so liberal if my own job was effected, (I liked to think it would be). I may still have to apply for my role if someone else expresses an interest. We are currently at the point of waiting for the final proposal.

[factor-fiction]

Another reason may be that someone is surplus to requirements in a role and is the only such available person for a vacant different role at the same level, so is placed into it, even though they ma not necesssarily be a perfect match

[bednobs]

in our place there were 5 jobs and 5 people, so instead of re-interviewing, those 5 were slotted in, even thoug h their jobs ddi not match the 85% criteria

[buildersmate]

Fair enough. What I've heard called 'job rationalisation' before, but which perhaps is too close to looking like 'redundancy/redeployment', which mentions the R-word, so avoided.

To answer the question, can't think of too many other reasons, apart from the avoidance of having to declare redundancies.

[boxtops]

we certainly use the Redeployment word at the moment, BM - if the person in the redeployment pool (because their own job is going) doesn't fit into the new job spec, then redundancy is the next step.

Over the years I have taken a couple of people from the pool who came from quite different roles, and thankfully it's worked very well - but it doesn't always.