Redundancy during maternity
Discussion
Mrs CP has just been made redundant whilst on maternity leave.
It is a genuine redundancy, as part of the business has been sold.
The money offered, doesn't cover what she should be due if she was at work, let alone what she will lose from being unable to job seek whilst on maternity.
Can anyone recommend any decent employment lawyers around Bristol that might be able to offer any guidance? Or would any gurus here be able to help with an offline chat?
She is speaking to acas and maternity action this afternoon.
Cheers CP.
It is a genuine redundancy, as part of the business has been sold.
The money offered, doesn't cover what she should be due if she was at work, let alone what she will lose from being unable to job seek whilst on maternity.
Can anyone recommend any decent employment lawyers around Bristol that might be able to offer any guidance? Or would any gurus here be able to help with an offline chat?
She is speaking to acas and maternity action this afternoon.
Cheers CP.
As long as the redundancy is fair, and not discriminatory because of her maternity leave, then she'll probably only be due the same redundancy terms as everyone else, but also receive the balance of any statutory maternity pay.
Unless there is discrimination involved, then that is the likely outcome.
Unless there is discrimination involved, then that is the likely outcome.
Have they followed the right process, formal interview, consultancy, being offered another position if available etc, sometimes the correct process gets overlooked when the employee concerned is not actually at work.
My ex was in a very similar position when expecting our first son and got a considerable payout because of errors made by the company in the redundacy process.
Get some proper advice from a specialist.
My ex was in a very similar position when expecting our first son and got a considerable payout because of errors made by the company in the redundacy process.
Get some proper advice from a specialist.
BertBert said:
Yes TUPE may well be involved, but that doesn't make the redundancy automatically wrongful if the right process is followed.
TUPE - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/246/regula...The Rookie said:
Does that then not come under TUPE which would make any redundancy automatically wrongful?
7.—(1) Where either before or after a relevant transfer, any employee of the transferor or transferee is dismissed, that employee shall be treated for the purposes of Part X of the 1996 Act (unfair dismissal) as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for his dismissal is—
(a)the transfer itself; or
(b)a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce.
Process isn't relevant, they would have to show it had nothing to do with transferring the undertaking or that it wasn't a 'relevant transfer', based on the OP's version of events in the first post it would be a slam dunk, of course the employer may have a different version of events.
Edited by The Rookie on Tuesday 17th April 04:42
The Rookie said:
TUPE - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/246/regula...
7.—(1) Where either before or after a relevant transfer, any employee of the transferor or transferee is dismissed, that employee shall be treated for the purposes of Part X of the 1996 Act (unfair dismissal) as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for his dismissal is—
(a)the transfer itself; or
(b)a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce.
Process isn't relevant, they would have to show it had nothing to do with transferring the undertaking or that it wasn't a 'relevant transfer', based on the OP's version of events in the first post it would be a slam dunk, of course the employer may have a different version of events.
You have this wrong I’m afraid. Or perhaps are ignoring para (b)from the reg you have quoted - an employee can be dismissed fairly following a TUPE transfer for an ETO reason (economic, technical or organisational). When there are duplicate roles following a merger and redundancies result, that’s a good example of an ETO reason.7.—(1) Where either before or after a relevant transfer, any employee of the transferor or transferee is dismissed, that employee shall be treated for the purposes of Part X of the 1996 Act (unfair dismissal) as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for his dismissal is—
(a)the transfer itself; or
(b)a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce.
Process isn't relevant, they would have to show it had nothing to do with transferring the undertaking or that it wasn't a 'relevant transfer', based on the OP's version of events in the first post it would be a slam dunk, of course the employer may have a different version of events.
Edited by The Rookie on Tuesday 17th April 04:42
I’m not saying the redundancy is legit, but the OP should not be given the impression that Mrs OP has a cast iron case.
And there might not even have been a TUPE transfer - IME, when lay people talk about the sale/transfer of a business, it could be an asset sale (when TUPE would be relevant) or a share sale (when it is not).
bladebloke said:
The Rookie said:
TUPE - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/246/regula...
7.—(1) Where either before or after a relevant transfer, any employee of the transferor or transferee is dismissed, that employee shall be treated for the purposes of Part X of the 1996 Act (unfair dismissal) as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for his dismissal is—
(a)the transfer itself; or
(b)a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce.
Process isn't relevant, they would have to show it had nothing to do with transferring the undertaking or that it wasn't a 'relevant transfer', based on the OP's version of events in the first post it would be a slam dunk, of course the employer may have a different version of events.
You have this wrong I’m afraid. Or perhaps are ignoring para (b)from the reg you have quoted - an employee can be dismissed fairly following a TUPE transfer for an ETO reason (economic, technical or organisational). When there are duplicate roles following a merger and redundancies result, that’s a good example of an ETO reason.7.—(1) Where either before or after a relevant transfer, any employee of the transferor or transferee is dismissed, that employee shall be treated for the purposes of Part X of the 1996 Act (unfair dismissal) as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for his dismissal is—
(a)the transfer itself; or
(b)a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce.
Process isn't relevant, they would have to show it had nothing to do with transferring the undertaking or that it wasn't a 'relevant transfer', based on the OP's version of events in the first post it would be a slam dunk, of course the employer may have a different version of events.
Edited by The Rookie on Tuesday 17th April 04:42
I was involved in assisting a chap at work and he was being offered statutory minimum redundancy having lost his role due to a TUPE, the company ended up offering him a lot more in exchange for him taking VR.
The Rookie said:
Many cases have tried divorcing ETO from the "transfer itself" (para a) and failed (not all of course), mainly as ETO doesn't liberate you from para a because its a OR b. So 'your being made redundant BECAUSE we sold that part of the business' (with no riders to it) comes within a and ETO is no defence to a.
I was involved in assisting a chap at work and he was being offered statutory minimum redundancy having lost his role due to a TUPE, the company ended up offering him a lot more in exchange for him taking VR.
Of course an ETO avoids unfair dismissal (either a or b) provided it is carried out correctly. Your example doesn't make sense - making someone redundant just "BECAUSE we sold the business" is not an ETO. If the business is sold and an ETO takes place (for example because there are now duplicate roles) then redundancy can legitimately take place. The catalyst for the ETO is the business being sold which then leads to the redundancy.I was involved in assisting a chap at work and he was being offered statutory minimum redundancy having lost his role due to a TUPE, the company ended up offering him a lot more in exchange for him taking VR.
It is unclear from the OP whether that is what has taken place - so the company may or may not have acted correctly. It would be usual in an ETO process for all affected staff to be consulted (in both the existing business and the company acquiring the business) before decisions are made. Again, it is not clear whether this has happened.
OH is booked in to see a solicitor on Thursday am.
We have made an amount of progress, though I think this will now pause until after she sees the solicitor. They have done things in a rush, with plenty of mistakes, and some glaring gaps, that even a layman such as myself has been able to highlight...
I have discussed raising the TUPE issue with the solicitor on Thursday.
Thanks chaps.
It hasn't been a great place to work, so although quite a lot of hassle it is a positive thing. Most of the people shouted wahoo and were delighted with their package. Of the few that stayed, a couple have quit because they weren't being laid off!
We have made an amount of progress, though I think this will now pause until after she sees the solicitor. They have done things in a rush, with plenty of mistakes, and some glaring gaps, that even a layman such as myself has been able to highlight...
I have discussed raising the TUPE issue with the solicitor on Thursday.
Thanks chaps.
It hasn't been a great place to work, so although quite a lot of hassle it is a positive thing. Most of the people shouted wahoo and were delighted with their package. Of the few that stayed, a couple have quit because they weren't being laid off!
The Rookie said:
Many cases have tried divorcing ETO from the "transfer itself" (para a) and failed (not all of course), mainly as ETO doesn't liberate you from para a because its a OR b. So 'your being made redundant BECAUSE we sold that part of the business' (with no riders to it) comes within a and ETO is no defence to a.
I was involved in assisting a chap at work and he was being offered statutory minimum redundancy having lost his role due to a TUPE, the company ended up offering him a lot more in exchange for him taking VR.
Many cases? Perhaps you can give some examples?.I was involved in assisting a chap at work and he was being offered statutory minimum redundancy having lost his role due to a TUPE, the company ended up offering him a lot more in exchange for him taking VR.
You mention that the chap you helped had lost his role due to a TUPE transfer. To read the same thing from the OP’s first post is, I think, making many assumptions. And to call it a “slam dunk”; well....
OP, glad the OH is booked in to see somebody. If she feels like she would be better off out then hopefully she will have some good leverage with which to negotiate a decent settlement.
Jasandjules said:
Part of the business has been sold? To carry on with? NOT shut down?
Yep, to be incorporated into another business. They have basically taken the stock, sales guys and customer list.Remaining staff are being released.. Finance, technical and admin.
Proposed 'Agreement' is between OH and the two companies.
CubanPete said:
It does look like it. Especially with the enhanced employment rights under maternity.
I keep suggesting to her that this isn't her negotiating up from redundancy, but them negotiating down from unfair dismissal... Will see what the solicitor says tomorrow.
It sounds like you are negotiating from S18 EQA (it is shockingly common for a redundancy to materialise shortly after a lady announces she is pregnant) point of view. Bearing in mind that would mean there is no cap on any possible award.....I keep suggesting to her that this isn't her negotiating up from redundancy, but them negotiating down from unfair dismissal... Will see what the solicitor says tomorrow.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff