Pay in Lieu of Notice - Larger Sums Involved
Discussion
I'm being made redundant effective 7th November 2012, no shock here as I've been expecting it.
My contract states 6 months notice period e.g. ending May 7th 2013- the company has opted to pay this out.
They've offered the following:
6 months salary - contractual
car, health and superannuation/retirement contributions for 6 months
Where it get's tricky is I'm eligible for a bonus March 30th of US$200K (£125K) and I have share options vesting March 31st US$180K (£110K).
The company has offered to pro-rata the bonus to Nov date e.g. 7 of 12 months or 58% of £125K.
But they're reneging on the vested shares e.g. zero....
I'm based in Australia and recently transferred my contract from US to Aus so Australian Law applies but in principal it's closely aligned to UK law.
The Federal Courts here ruled the following in a 2009 case:
The required amount of compensation instead of notice must equal or exceed the total of all amounts that, if the employee's employment had continued until the end of the required period of notice, the employer would have become liable to pay to the employee because of the employment continuing during that period
So to my mind I have a strong case to go after the company for £225K as opposed to the £72K they're offering. I do however want to resolve amicably.
Any HR or legal bod care to comment on this?
My contract states 6 months notice period e.g. ending May 7th 2013- the company has opted to pay this out.
They've offered the following:
6 months salary - contractual
car, health and superannuation/retirement contributions for 6 months
Where it get's tricky is I'm eligible for a bonus March 30th of US$200K (£125K) and I have share options vesting March 31st US$180K (£110K).
The company has offered to pro-rata the bonus to Nov date e.g. 7 of 12 months or 58% of £125K.
But they're reneging on the vested shares e.g. zero....
I'm based in Australia and recently transferred my contract from US to Aus so Australian Law applies but in principal it's closely aligned to UK law.
The Federal Courts here ruled the following in a 2009 case:
The required amount of compensation instead of notice must equal or exceed the total of all amounts that, if the employee's employment had continued until the end of the required period of notice, the employer would have become liable to pay to the employee because of the employment continuing during that period
So to my mind I have a strong case to go after the company for £225K as opposed to the £72K they're offering. I do however want to resolve amicably.
Any HR or legal bod care to comment on this?
I'm certainly no expert and not familiar with Australian law, but am reasonably familiar with UK employment law and how civil law here works in general.
Based on your 2009 ruling, it would seem that there has been a precedent set to support your view of the world. Again, I can't speak for Australia, but in the UK any subsequent judge is obliged to arrive at the same conclusion (based on Case Law) unless he/she can make a robust arguement as to who the circumstances are sufficiently different to render the previous ruling inapplicable to the current case.
Based on your 2009 ruling, it would seem that there has been a precedent set to support your view of the world. Again, I can't speak for Australia, but in the UK any subsequent judge is obliged to arrive at the same conclusion (based on Case Law) unless he/she can make a robust arguement as to who the circumstances are sufficiently different to render the previous ruling inapplicable to the current case.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff