Redundancy & previous enhanced terms precedent

[Roger645]

Quick overview. have worked for company for 16 years, in 2012 there was a round of redundancies in which I was one of those at risk. At the time there was an enhanced terms offered which was statutory plus a weeks full salary for every year worked. I wasn't made redundant and in November 2014 we were acquired by new owners. They are shedding 30% of the workforce and we have been put on notice of risk of redundancy but this time the package is just the minimum. There has been no notification of change to T's & C's or changes to contracts.

Would the previous redundancy terms stand as a precedent? 16 weeks would be a reasonable chunk of money so i would be happy to secure it if possible/

Thanks for any advice.

[c8bof]

Unless the previously enhanced package was contractual, you might be out of luck this time round.

We recently offered (as the employer) enhanced redundancy packages (both voluntary and compulsory) but have got no obligation to offer the same enhancements in the future. The money might not be available to the employer next time round?

You should check what your contract says on the matter.

[Roger645]

c8bof said:

Unless the previously enhanced package was contractual, you might be out of luck this time round.

We recently offered (as the employer) enhanced redundancy packages (both voluntary and compulsory) but have got no obligation to offer the same enhancements in the future. The money might not be available to the employer next time round?

You should check what your contract says on the matter.

Thanks for the response. Some one said to me that unless a previous offer is specifically withdrawn then a precedent is set hence my question.

[davek_964]

Almost exactly what happened to me - load of redundancies, new owners for the rest of us and more redundancies less than a year later with worse terms.

The difference for us was much less significant than for you, and we still got much more than minimum. But it was worse than the redundancies 10 months before.

We had even been told when they bought us that that if they made further redundancies it would be on the same terms. But when it happened we were told the situation had changed.

We had lawyers involved because they were needed to make sure we understood the severance agreement - but even they told us there is no precedent. If they offer minimum, they are following the law.

We did get some concession, but not everything we felt we should have.

[Jasandjules]

You can argue that it is a custom and practice of the employer now...

[Roger645]

Jasandjules said:

You can argue that it is a custom and practice of the employer now...

Thanks for the information, I see that there is a pre employment tribunal stage now where ACAS seek to mediate an agreement between the employer and employee, would it be worth doing that in this situation?

[Jasandjules]

Roger645 said:

Thanks for the information, I see that there is a pre employment tribunal stage now where ACAS seek to mediate an agreement between the employer and employee, would it be worth doing that in this situation?

You are required to do so. Well, that is not quite the case, you are required to engage ACAS, perhaps not for long, however if there is a chance to get things resolved WP then is an avenue to explore.

[Countdown]

Based on my experience it isn't a precedent.

Something similar happened at a previous place where I worked. The unions tried to argue that earlier (ridiculously attractive) redundancy and VER terms should be offered to the latest batch of "at risk" people. Our lawyers said they didn't have to and in practice they didn't.

[Jasandjules]

Countdown said:

Based on my experience it isn't a precedent.

Something similar happened at a previous place where I worked. The unions tried to argue that earlier (ridiculously attractive) redundancy and VER terms should be offered to the latest batch of "at risk" people. Our lawyers said they didn't have to and in practice they didn't.

It falls to the facts, how many previous times this has happened etc

You say "they didn't" - did you lose an ET claim?

[Countdown]

Jasandjules said:

It falls to the facts, how many previous times this has happened etc

You say "they didn't" - did you lose an ET claim?

IIRC there were in total 4 rounds of redundancies over a period of 15 years. Rounds 1 and 2 were very favourable (I month for every year plus 3 months salary). Round 3 was reduced to 1 month for each years service and this was when the unions argued custom and practice. Our HR dept disagreed, and the unions didn't challenge so it didn't go to ET. Round 4 was reduced even more IIRC 2 weeks for every year's service.

[edc]

It's hard to argue custom and practice based on one prior event.

[Roger645]

If there have been previous rounds of redundancies where I was not included in those at risk are the terms classed as confidential? When I initially spoke to HR about the last time (one I was included in) I was initially told that the terms were confidential. If I were to request details of previous rounds of redundancy to support my case can the employer withhold them?

[Roger645]

If there have been previous rounds of redundancies where I was not included in those at risk are the terms classed as confidential? When I initially spoke to HR about the last time (one I was included in) I was initially told that the terms were confidential. If I were to request details of previous rounds of redundancy to support my case can the employer withhold them?

[Sir Bagalot]

With 16 years service you're also on at least 12 weeks notice period

[Roger645]

Sir Bagalot said:

With 16 years service you're also on at least 12 weeks notice period

great, thanks for that, that's useful to know.

[davek_964]

Roger645 said:

Sir Bagalot said:

With 16 years service you're also on at least 12 weeks notice period

great, thanks for that, that's useful to know.

Just to clarify something here :

If they really are offering statutory minimum, then you would be entitled to 12 weeks but that is capped at a nominal rate, which depending on your salary could be significantly less than you actually earn. (Also worth noting that if you're over 40, you are actually entitled to 1.5 weeks for every year you were working there over 40).

As I said before, at least our lawyers made it clear that there is no precendent and (although we already knew the details) we were also clearly told that they would not discuss the terms of previous redundancies with us. Because it has nothing to do with the new round of redundancies (and hence they can offer what they like, within the bounds of the law).

[edc]

davek_964 said:

Roger645 said:

Sir Bagalot said:

With 16 years service you're also on at least 12 weeks notice period

great, thanks for that, that's useful to know.

Just to clarify something here :

If they really are offering statutory minimum, then you would be entitled to 12 weeks but that is capped at a nominal rate, which depending on your salary could be significantly less than you actually earn. (Also worth noting that if you're over 40, you are actually entitled to 1.5 weeks for every year you were working there over 40).

As I said before, at least our lawyers made it clear that there is no precendent and (although we already knew the details) we were also clearly told that they would not discuss the terms of previous redundancies with us. Because it has nothing to do with the new round of redundancies (and hence they can offer what they like, within the bounds of the law).

I think there is some confusion here. The 12 weeks is referring to the statutory notice period required to terminate the employment. This maxes out at 12 weeks unless more by contract.

Redundancy entitlement is calculated by a calculator/matrix and you accrue eligible weeks at a different rate based on age banding. How many eligible weeks you are entitled to depends on how old you are and your length of service. The max capped rate is something like £464 per week. The calculator is on the .gov.uk website

[davek_964]

edc said:

davek_964 said:

Roger645 said:

Sir Bagalot said:

With 16 years service you're also on at least 12 weeks notice period

great, thanks for that, that's useful to know.

Just to clarify something here :

If they really are offering statutory minimum, then you would be entitled to 12 weeks but that is capped at a nominal rate, which depending on your salary could be significantly less than you actually earn. (Also worth noting that if you're over 40, you are actually entitled to 1.5 weeks for every year you were working there over 40).

As I said before, at least our lawyers made it clear that there is no precendent and (although we already knew the details) we were also clearly told that they would not discuss the terms of previous redundancies with us. Because it has nothing to do with the new round of redundancies (and hence they can offer what they like, within the bounds of the law).

I think there is some confusion here. The 12 weeks is referring to the statutory notice period required to terminate the employment. This maxes out at 12 weeks unless more by contract.

Redundancy entitlement is calculated by a calculator/matrix and you accrue eligible weeks at a different rate based on age banding. How many eligible weeks you are entitled to depends on how old you are and your length of service. The max capped rate is something like £464 per week. The calculator is on the .gov.uk website

Oops, good point.

Which means the OP would be legally entitled to at least 12 weeks notice pay and at least 16 weeks redundancy pay (could be more if over 40, but might be at a capped rate).

[Roger645]

davek_964 said:

Roger645 said:

Sir Bagalot said:

With 16 years service you're also on at least 12 weeks notice period

great, thanks for that, that's useful to know.

Just to clarify something here :

If they really are offering statutory minimum, then you would be entitled to 12 weeks but that is capped at a nominal rate, which depending on your salary could be significantly less than you actually earn. (Also worth noting that if you're over 40, you are actually entitled to 1.5 weeks for every year you were working there over 40).

As I said before, at least our lawyers made it clear that there is no precendent and (although we already knew the details) we were also clearly told that they would not discuss the terms of previous redundancies with us. Because it has nothing to do with the new round of redundancies (and hence they can offer what they like, within the bounds of the law).

Thanks for the response, WRT to previous details how is an employee able to make a case for a precedent being set at an employment tribunal if the details are not available?

[Roger645]

Update: We have been given a settlement agreement (11 pages) and we have to fund our own solicitor for review, any one have any ideas what the ball park cost would be for reviewing this?

Thanks

Roger