Redundancy situation not being handled correctly?
Discussion
My former colleagues (a bunch of them) are finding themselves in what I think is an odd situation and I thought I'd ask my learned friends on PH for advice,
UK company, circa ~200 people, Announced they are laying off ~100 folks on Monday of which ~ 80 are in the UK.
They are not handling it as a redundancy situation despite a bunch of the unlucky folks having the same job titles as others who have not been let go. Management have just picked the names of the folks who are to leave and they've gone straight to telling them on the day, and offered them a settlement agreement with a paltry amount of cash over the gov redundancy number.
Question - can they even do this? - I thought if it was over 20 people you have to go through proper redundancy and can't skip the process (consultation period etc) which is what appears to be happening here?
UK company, circa ~200 people, Announced they are laying off ~100 folks on Monday of which ~ 80 are in the UK.
They are not handling it as a redundancy situation despite a bunch of the unlucky folks having the same job titles as others who have not been let go. Management have just picked the names of the folks who are to leave and they've gone straight to telling them on the day, and offered them a settlement agreement with a paltry amount of cash over the gov redundancy number.
Question - can they even do this? - I thought if it was over 20 people you have to go through proper redundancy and can't skip the process (consultation period etc) which is what appears to be happening here?
I expect they will see if enough people go with the compromise agreements. If they don't, then they will start the 'proper' consultation process. If people take the compromise agreements they are not making anyone redundant.
And yes, they are playing a bit fast and loose with the rules but it might work for them in the end.
And yes, they are playing a bit fast and loose with the rules but it might work for them in the end.
ARHarh said:
As said they are a bit free with the laws of the land but if you have the option of a settlement just above statutory redundancy payments or statutory redundancy you would be daft not to take it surely?
I guess - from what I've seen elsewhere, the redundancy package itself has always been enhanced (in some cases quite generously) so I've never witnessed the option of it actually being at the statutory amount.....CharlesElliott said:
I expect they will see if enough people go with the compromise agreements. If they don't, then they will start the 'proper' consultation process. If people take the compromise agreements they are not making anyone redundant.
Interesting - If enough people don't take it, then presumably this makes it all a bit tricky to then have a 'fair' process, i.e. one with the usual carefully crafted selection criteria where no-one has been pre-selected etc. ARHarh said:
As said they are a bit free with the laws of the land but if you have the option of a settlement just above statutory redundancy payments or statutory redundancy you would be daft not to take it surely?
fat80b said:
They are not handling it as a redundancy situation despite a bunch of the unlucky folks having the same job titles as others who have not been let go.
If you're sat there offered some money to leave and the guy with the same job is sat next to you and not asked to leave, why should you lose your job?Granted, if you go through a matrix and employer can make that read what they like but if they're offering a "paltry" amount over statutory redundancy I'd be asking where my consultation meeting is.....
CharlesElliott said:
I expect they will see if enough people go with the compromise agreements. If they don't, then they will start the 'proper' consultation process. If people take the compromise agreements they are not making anyone redundant.
And yes, they are playing a bit fast and loose with the rules but it might work for them in the end.
One strategy would be take the offer on the table and then file an employment tribunal claim for failing to adhere to the redundancy process perhaps?And yes, they are playing a bit fast and loose with the rules but it might work for them in the end.
If enought people don't take the compromise, they will then go through a selection procedure which will magically select the same people that have been selected now.
People can make a bit of noise and try to get an uplift on their compromise package, but the writing is probably on the wall.
People can make a bit of noise and try to get an uplift on their compromise package, but the writing is probably on the wall.
Muzzer79 said:
but if they're offering a "paltry" amount over statutory redundancy I'd be asking where my consultation meeting is.....
That's my view too - i.e. the few hundred quid being offered ain't enough and I'd be kicking up a stink. Especially as there are a reasonable number of people involved. blue_haddock said:
CharlesElliott said:
I expect they will see if enough people go with the compromise agreements. If they don't, then they will start the 'proper' consultation process. If people take the compromise agreements they are not making anyone redundant.
And yes, they are playing a bit fast and loose with the rules but it might work for them in the end.
One strategy would be take the offer on the table and then file an employment tribunal claim for failing to adhere to the redundancy process perhaps?And yes, they are playing a bit fast and loose with the rules but it might work for them in the end.
Redundancy costs companies a lot of money in the short term. If it's unaffordable from cashflow or reserves then they turn to banks for loans (which increases the cost further). When none of these are available, companies tend to explore ways around the legislation and to me, what the OP describes suggests this is the situation here. If so, those facing the axe need to consider the impact of pursuing the matter further because it could lead to either, more redundancies beyond those already stated or the company going under meaning nobody gets anything including their last pay packet (in the worse case scenario).
Or it could just be that the company is tighter than a duck's arse.
Or it could just be that the company is tighter than a duck's arse.
StevieBee said:
Redundancy costs companies a lot of money in the short term. If it's unaffordable from cashflow or reserves then they turn to banks for loans (which increases the cost further). When none of these are available, companies tend to explore ways around the legislation and to me, what the OP describes suggests this is the situation here. If so, those facing the axe need to consider the impact of pursuing the matter further because it could lead to either, more redundancies beyond those already stated or the company going under meaning nobody gets anything including their last pay packet (in the worse case scenario).
Or it could just be that the company is tighter than a duck's arse.
Unfortunately most employees are far too nice about these things and will probably take the offer.Or it could just be that the company is tighter than a duck's arse.
Having been there and done that, twice, I would make it as awkward as possible for the employer. I dried my tears with the extra money they had to pony up for following an unfair process.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff