At risk of redundancy and an unmeaningful consultation.
Discussion
Hello one and all..
So the hammer has dropped. All the work is being moved to a low cost country. The problem is that my soon to be former employees don t seem to understand their legal requirements of a group consultation.
First off, it was an individual consultation. Then it got switched to a group consultation...
We didn't get asked to elect a representative. No voting took place. Also, both reps where picked by the company. They are actually managers. To top it off, at least one of them was potentially not even in the country to attend the initial consultancy meeting.
I spoke to ACAS and given what I said I was told that it could be considered an "unmeaningful" consultation. I wrote to the company with a formal grievance seeking clarification on these points but they are on a slow roll replying (So far it's a "We acknowledge your grievance").
We also cannot meet their scoring criteria as the stuff we need access to hasn't properly been granted to us yet, except in a slapdash piecemeal way. They waved this off as we should be able to demonstrate it in our current jobs.. We cant, because the technology is fundamentally different. (I am skilled in it, but not through work, ifyswim).
It's also all sorts of other stupid... The intranet (no one knows if its even the "correct" intranet) doesn t have the company handbook, like my contract states, we have now been given two different managers , and then it never happened. The left hand doesn't know what the right is doing
We all know we are going and these are "going through the motions" but it is causing distress to everyone.
What I am looking for really, is someone in the know with these matters to tell us if we have it right and secondly, what we can do about it. I know a tribunal can actually award three months wages for this behaviour but that's all I know now. They could remedy the breach and start over but I suspect that is unlikely as they have pressure to complete by a certain date.
Can anyone advise?
Edited to clean up some grammar.
So the hammer has dropped. All the work is being moved to a low cost country. The problem is that my soon to be former employees don t seem to understand their legal requirements of a group consultation.
First off, it was an individual consultation. Then it got switched to a group consultation...
We didn't get asked to elect a representative. No voting took place. Also, both reps where picked by the company. They are actually managers. To top it off, at least one of them was potentially not even in the country to attend the initial consultancy meeting.
I spoke to ACAS and given what I said I was told that it could be considered an "unmeaningful" consultation. I wrote to the company with a formal grievance seeking clarification on these points but they are on a slow roll replying (So far it's a "We acknowledge your grievance").
We also cannot meet their scoring criteria as the stuff we need access to hasn't properly been granted to us yet, except in a slapdash piecemeal way. They waved this off as we should be able to demonstrate it in our current jobs.. We cant, because the technology is fundamentally different. (I am skilled in it, but not through work, ifyswim).
It's also all sorts of other stupid... The intranet (no one knows if its even the "correct" intranet) doesn t have the company handbook, like my contract states, we have now been given two different managers , and then it never happened. The left hand doesn't know what the right is doing
We all know we are going and these are "going through the motions" but it is causing distress to everyone.
What I am looking for really, is someone in the know with these matters to tell us if we have it right and secondly, what we can do about it. I know a tribunal can actually award three months wages for this behaviour but that's all I know now. They could remedy the breach and start over but I suspect that is unlikely as they have pressure to complete by a certain date.
Can anyone advise?
Edited to clean up some grammar.
Find a solicitor who is experienced in unemployment law and engage them early. Most people shy away from the cost, but if it results in a significantly higher payout then it can often pay for itself many times over!
Most will offer a free consultation, from there you can get a sense of what you are dealing with and the best way forward. Your company have no incentive to do the right thing for you/your colleagues, retain expert advice to do that for you.
I work for one of the largest technology companies globally, there have been several rounds of well publicised redundancies. These have all been initiated and run from the states, by people with zero understanding of UK employment law (e.g, zero consultations, just people being told to go by some random algorithm). The smart people turned up with solicitors in tow to their "notification" call ................... or bought them in soon after.
Most will offer a free consultation, from there you can get a sense of what you are dealing with and the best way forward. Your company have no incentive to do the right thing for you/your colleagues, retain expert advice to do that for you.
I work for one of the largest technology companies globally, there have been several rounds of well publicised redundancies. These have all been initiated and run from the states, by people with zero understanding of UK employment law (e.g, zero consultations, just people being told to go by some random algorithm). The smart people turned up with solicitors in tow to their "notification" call ................... or bought them in soon after.
Thanks for the replies guys.
I did do the half hour free with one but he didn’t seem to understand the crux of the argument. Who knows, maybe I got the YTS trainee
As for the number of people and who is affected, they won't actually tell us. All they are saying is more than 20. I have kept all the notes, recorded all the conversations etc. We are finding out via the jungle drums... and its more weekly.
They haven’t/wont (don't know which yet) even give me a timescale for replies to queries about the process.
So a very loaded question... Is it better to hedge the risk by going no win no fee or paying by the hour which gets very expensive very quick. I was quoted at £300/h
I did do the half hour free with one but he didn’t seem to understand the crux of the argument. Who knows, maybe I got the YTS trainee
As for the number of people and who is affected, they won't actually tell us. All they are saying is more than 20. I have kept all the notes, recorded all the conversations etc. We are finding out via the jungle drums... and its more weekly.
They haven’t/wont (don't know which yet) even give me a timescale for replies to queries about the process.
So a very loaded question... Is it better to hedge the risk by going no win no fee or paying by the hour which gets very expensive very quick. I was quoted at £300/h
Get a specialist. They'll have all the information you need to start, I'm sure one of the resident PH legal types can point you in the right direction.
You do not want a generalist for this stuff.
Over 20 affected means group negotiation is (iirc) required.
I was drafted in as a group rep for a salaried group being made redundant in parallel with a union group being made redundant (in Ireland, but very similar legal requirements, I believe)
Good news is that if the company buggers it up, theyre liable.....
But you've got to know (and can prove) they have.
M.
You do not want a generalist for this stuff.
Over 20 affected means group negotiation is (iirc) required.
I was drafted in as a group rep for a salaried group being made redundant in parallel with a union group being made redundant (in Ireland, but very similar legal requirements, I believe)
Good news is that if the company buggers it up, theyre liable.....
But you've got to know (and can prove) they have.
M.
Being realistic, what impact would a genuine consultation have ?
This may mean you win in Tribunal but what are the consequences ? IF not much cash at all, then is it worth the effort?
However what you can do is negotiate an increased offer to exit now and save everyone all the hassle.......
This may mean you win in Tribunal but what are the consequences ? IF not much cash at all, then is it worth the effort?
However what you can do is negotiate an increased offer to exit now and save everyone all the hassle.......
Jasandjules said:
Being realistic, what impact would a genuine consultation have ?
This may mean you win in Tribunal but what are the consequences ? IF not much cash at all, then is it worth the effort?
However what you can do is negotiate an increased offer to exit now and save everyone all the hassle.......
Negotiate how?This may mean you win in Tribunal but what are the consequences ? IF not much cash at all, then is it worth the effort?
However what you can do is negotiate an increased offer to exit now and save everyone all the hassle.......
From my read of it, the company is doing zero negotiations, so it'll be statutory at best
M.
Mortarboard said:
Jasandjules said:
Being realistic, what impact would a genuine consultation have ?
This may mean you win in Tribunal but what are the consequences ? IF not much cash at all, then is it worth the effort?
However what you can do is negotiate an increased offer to exit now and save everyone all the hassle.......
Negotiate how?This may mean you win in Tribunal but what are the consequences ? IF not much cash at all, then is it worth the effort?
However what you can do is negotiate an increased offer to exit now and save everyone all the hassle.......
From my read of it, the company is doing zero negotiations, so it'll be statutory at best
M.
You are right tin query ACAS and I would suggest to wait until company's formal response before engaging expensive lawyers.
There is a lot of misconception about consultation. I have been through half a dozen as a elected rep. Remember that consultation just requires employers to demonstrate they have taken "reasonable" steps to offer alternatives jobs, clarified selectionsl criteria and offered training etc. Usual answer from companies is profitability and that a a "valid reason" under the law. Also the consultation cannot force companies to provide anything more than statutory payment. Company should have a redundancy policy with basic details and if not that should be 1st point of call.
There is a lot of misconception about consultation. I have been through half a dozen as a elected rep. Remember that consultation just requires employers to demonstrate they have taken "reasonable" steps to offer alternatives jobs, clarified selectionsl criteria and offered training etc. Usual answer from companies is profitability and that a a "valid reason" under the law. Also the consultation cannot force companies to provide anything more than statutory payment. Company should have a redundancy policy with basic details and if not that should be 1st point of call.
Mortarboard said:
Negotiate how?
From my read of it, the company is doing zero negotiations, so it'll be statutory at best
M.
I am not sure what you read to say that, unless I am mistaken it was not mentioned per se. From my read of it, the company is doing zero negotiations, so it'll be statutory at best
M.
In his shoes, I would ask and suggest that a swift exit saves everyone the hassle of (a) Continuing the process (b) any appeal against any decision and (c) any litigation....
Any increase in the ex gratia payment is good. You can also consider whether PILON might apply and check your contract regarding benefits etc.
Jasandjules said:
Mortarboard said:
Negotiate how?
From my read of it, the company is doing zero negotiations, so it'll be statutory at best
M.
I am not sure what you read to say that, unless I am mistaken it was not mentioned per se. From my read of it, the company is doing zero negotiations, so it'll be statutory at best
M.
In his shoes, I would ask and suggest that a swift exit saves everyone the hassle of (a) Continuing the process (b) any appeal against any decision and (c) any litigation....
Any increase in the ex gratia payment is good. You can also consider whether PILON might apply and check your contract regarding benefits etc.
If those at risk of redundancy ate the even allowed choose their reps.
With 20+ employees at risk, the company can quite legally refuse to negotiate with individuals.
In that environment, I'd be shocked if anything other than the bare minimum will be proffered.
OP in in a position where they need legal guidance.
Imo, of course. Op is also free to take the advice of internet randoms too.
It's only money
M.
Mortarboard said:
OP in in a position where they need legal guidance.
Imo, of course. Op is also free to take the advice of internet randoms too.
Some internet randoms advise both companies and individuals in relation to redundancies and litigate in employment tribunals. Imo, of course. Op is also free to take the advice of internet randoms too.
You never know when one of those might pop out of the woodwork.
Now, you may be right and they will not negotiate but that is not indicated in the OP and would only become clear once an attempt to open up discussions is made.
Hey All,
Can't say too much more but to give a little bit of an update.. They are ploughing ahead regardless. They don’t seem interested in remedying the breach. They just want people off the books ASAP.
Everyone is being given by default the absolute legal minimum (at present). I do think that will change but I am keeping quiet and gathering supporting evidence. My issues and grievances have been raised and by looks of it will not be addressed by the time the redundancies. To be clear I don't expect to stay. All I am after is a fair and reasonable settlement.
I have a meeting with a solicitor friend later (Employment is not her area of expertise but she can tell me if I am on the right track. She can also suggest someone if needed.)
Either way their are multiple failures that they need to address and haven't but it will come out in the wash.
Can't say too much more but to give a little bit of an update.. They are ploughing ahead regardless. They don’t seem interested in remedying the breach. They just want people off the books ASAP.
Everyone is being given by default the absolute legal minimum (at present). I do think that will change but I am keeping quiet and gathering supporting evidence. My issues and grievances have been raised and by looks of it will not be addressed by the time the redundancies. To be clear I don't expect to stay. All I am after is a fair and reasonable settlement.
I have a meeting with a solicitor friend later (Employment is not her area of expertise but she can tell me if I am on the right track. She can also suggest someone if needed.)
Either way their are multiple failures that they need to address and haven't but it will come out in the wash.
Take Jas' advice and seek out an experienced solicitor, he was kind enough to have a chat we me when I was going through the mill and provide some very good advice. I found a specialist for my situation, resulted in a major uplift and me taking a well deserved year off. Still grateful Jas and I'm now back to being a powerfully built PH Director, although still training to guard the stairs. Big thanks!!
TheJadedAdmin said:
Everyone is being given by default the absolute legal minimum (at present). I do think that will change...
Why do you think they will increase an offer beyond the statutory minimum? It doesn't sound so far like they are remotely interested in doing anything but the bare minimum for everything.boyse7en said:
TheJadedAdmin said:
Everyone is being given by default the absolute legal minimum (at present). I do think that will change...
Why do you think they will increase an offer beyond the statutory minimum? It doesn't sound so far like they are remotely interested in doing anything but the bare minimum for everything.boyse7en said:
Why do you think they will increase an offer beyond the statutory minimum? It doesn't sound so far like they are remotely interested in doing anything but the bare minimum for everything.
Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But don't ask don't get. And a slightly higher offer to avoid the process etc might be something they would want....
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff