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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.