Redundancy consultation - any reason not to get a lawyer?

[davek_964]

If going through redundancy consultation, are there any obvious disadvantages to using an employment lawyer if you're not happy with the way the process is going? Can they suddenly announce that they are only paying statutory if you do this? Or even claim you're breaking your contracts somehow and they don't need to pay you at all?

Edited by davek_964 on Friday 25th July 20:22

[billshoreham]

Can they suddenly announce that they are only paying statutory if you do this? yes

Or even claim you're breaking your contracts somehow and they don't need to pay you at all? no

[anonymous-user]

i imagine the lawyers the company will have will outnumber yours..

what about a union, or out a case together yourself?

[Lotus Notes]

The lawyer can always advise you and the company need not know.
The lawyer can also write letters for you (signed and sent by you) to ensure that you get a good deal.

[davek_964]

Thanks for the answers.

We don't have a union, so that's not really an option. The package being offered is not really fair (there are clear arguments why) but so far there is very little flexibility from the company. So there have been suggestions that we get a lawyer to look over the details and help us with our arguments.

My concern however is that - although we're unhappy with what we've been offered - it could be considerably worse if it was statutory. We are clearly being unfairly treated and we want to challenge it - but nobody wants to lose what's already on offer (significantly more than statutory).

In anticipation of people asking why it's not fair if it's a significant amount of money anyway - we have very recent precedent.

[omniflow]

In my experience (as someone who has been through redundancy twice, and seen quite a few other people go through it too - including being part of the team "selecting" people for redundancy) companies find it quite / very difficult to actually adhere to the rules around redundancy. There were several aspects of my last redundancy that would not have stood up to scrutiny. However, the payout I got was more than the tribunal cap for a white, heterosexual, non-elderly male, so I didn't take it any further.

Engaging a lawyer MIGHT give you a chance at a tribunal. However, there are caps on what a tribunal will pay out. Whether or not it's worth the hassle will depend on your exact circumstances. The threat of a tribunal that the company knows they will lose, may well increase what's on offer - again, it all depends on the exact circumstances.

[Crafty_]

Is it worth speaking to ACAS before you start throwing money at lawyers?

[HenryJM]

davek_964 said:

Thanks for the answers.

We don't have a union, so that's not really an option. The package being offered is not really fair (there are clear arguments why) but so far there is very little flexibility from the company. So there have been suggestions that we get a lawyer to look over the details and help us with our arguments.

My concern however is that - although we're unhappy with what we've been offered - it could be considerably worse if it was statutory. We are clearly being unfairly treated and we want to challenge it - but nobody wants to lose what's already on offer (significantly more than statutory).

In anticipation of people asking why it's not fair if it's a significant amount of money anyway - we have very recent precedent.

Why is it unfair if it is more than statutory?

[Steve H]

HenryJM said:

Why is it unfair if it is more than statutory?

I was wondering that as well??

[davek_964]

Steve H said:

HenryJM said:

Why is it unfair if it is more than statutory?

I was wondering that as well??

As I said, very recent precedent.

Within the last year, there were other redundancies. There are significant items that were included in their package that have been omitted from ours, so the overall deal is clearly worse.

[davepoth]

davek_964 said:

As I said, very recent precedent.

Within the last year, there were other redundancies. There are significant items that were included in their package that have been omitted from ours, so the overall deal is clearly worse.

What's in your contract?

[ChasW]

I am not a lawyer but have been through redundancy processes and compromise agreements. One of my employers tried to "water down" the redundancy terms and make the terms formal when new contracts were put in place after a merger. They we trying to pass it off as just formalising what was already in place. However may of us senior managers kept all the paperwork guidance from previous redundancy rounds years before and noticed major changes in entitlement. We were advised, by employment lawyers, that although nothing was mentioned in our original contracts what ever "rules/policy" prevailed at the time of joining would apply to us. So when it came to my turn to go then I got the "old" more generous deal that was on offer at the time I joined not the watered down version newer hires were now entitled to.

[davek_964]

ChasW said:

I am not a lawyer but have been through redundancy processes and compromise agreements. One of my employers tried to "water down" the redundancy terms and make the terms formal when new contracts were put in place after a merger. They we trying to pass it off as just formalising what was already in place. However may of us senior managers kept all the paperwork guidance from previous redundancy rounds years before and noticed major changes in entitlement. We were advised, by employment lawyers, that although nothing was mentioned in our original contracts what ever "rules/policy" prevailed at the time of joining would apply to us. So when it came to my turn to go then I got the "old" more generous deal that was on offer at the time I joined not the watered down version newer hires were now entitled to.

Thanks for the info.

To answer previous questions, our contracts do not specify redundancy terms. And in fact, when I say the terms are unfair compared to previous examples, I have not stated that it's the "you will receive x weeks per year" part. There are other things the company can do that help significantly, and this is where the issue is.

I really do not want to turn this thread into : you're getting more than the law says, what are you complaining about?

Regardless of that, we are not happy - and even the people who have previously been made redundant think we're being treated unfairly. All I want to know is that if we talk to a lawyer for advise, could it get significantly worse. One of the early replies seems to say it definitely could - unless we keep that conversation private. If that's true, then it becomes quite a risky gamble.

[Countdown]

Just my twopenceworth -

At various times in the past, due to organisational restructures / market conditions we have offered voluntary redundancy packages. They have not always been the same (simply because, in the later ones, we couldn't afford to match the earlier packages.) As such I don't think a redundancy package can be deemed unfair just because the previous lot got better terms and conditions. However we made it clear to the Unions that, if enough people didn't go via the Voluntary scheme then we would be applying the compulsory redundancy scheme which was pretty much statutory minimum.


There's a barrister bloke on here called Breadvan72 who knows his HR stuff - might be worthwhile dropping him a PM?

[davek_964]

Countdown said:

Just my twopenceworth -

At various times in the past, due to organisational restructures / market conditions we have offered voluntary redundancy packages. They have not always been the same (simply because, in the later ones, we couldn't afford to match the earlier packages.) As such I don't think a redundancy package can be deemed unfair just because the previous lot got better terms and conditions. However we made it clear to the Unions that, if enough people didn't go via the Voluntary scheme then we would be applying the compulsory redundancy scheme which was pretty much statutory minimum.


There's a barrister bloke on here called Breadvan72 who knows his HR stuff - might be worthwhile dropping him a PM?

Thanks - I'll leave it a day or two and PM him if he doesn't see the thread and comment.

[Steve H]

davek_964 said:

Regardless of that, we are not happy - and even the people who have previously been made redundant think we're being treated unfairly. All I want to know is that if we talk to a lawyer for advise, could it get significantly worse. One of the early replies seems to say it definitely could - unless we keep that conversation private. If that's true, then it becomes quite a risky gamble.

I would think that 9/10 subjects of compulsory redundancies feel that there is a degree of unfairness in what is happening to them, in this case I can see what you are getting at but the previous comments (mine included) comparing with statutory rights were not trying to be harsh, just putting the opinion that anything above your legal rights is good and could be lost if you became adversarial.

Regarding your legal position, either you can enforce similar terms to the previous redundancies or you can't; a lawyer should be able to advise you on this without your company knowing you have spoken to them. If they can force an improvement you can get them involved but if not there does appear to be a risk that things could get worse.

[PorkInsider]

One of my previous employers made a change like this and didn't have any problem pushing it through.

When I joined they had just made several hundred people redundant. Those people received a full month's pay for every year worked, uncapped. They also received an additional 3 months' pay, on top of their notice pay, if they stayed until the department finally closed. I know this is fact as a couple of them reported in to me for their last few weeks / my first few weeks.

A year later they made more redundancies, this time paying 3 weeks for every year (capped at the statutory maximum weekly figure - currently £464) and no retention bonus.

The people involved were in a unionised environment and it was (still is) a very large company, so I would be pretty sure it was all above board.

As someone else mentioned, proper legal advice would be best, but I can't imagine why they couldn't do what they're planning to do.

Edited by PorkInsider on Sunday 27th July 17:42

Edited by PorkInsider on Sunday 27th July 17:44