Retention payment
Discussion
Hi all,
Basically..
Full time employed, PAYE
Told was being made redundant due to relocation (along with 93 others)
i havent been at the company 2 years so no redundancy payment due
was asked to stay a month past my end date and offered retention payment (tax free)
have found another job within the company (i found, applied, sat a test, interviewed and competed against external applicants)
New job starts 10 days AFTER the date they wanted me to retain.
they are now saying i am not entitled to that payment as i am staying with the company - even though i 'retained' until the date they asked to help them out with training new starters at the new location.
How does that sound? illegal / pants / not very decent / not cricket / BAU ?
Basically..
Full time employed, PAYE
Told was being made redundant due to relocation (along with 93 others)
i havent been at the company 2 years so no redundancy payment due
was asked to stay a month past my end date and offered retention payment (tax free)
have found another job within the company (i found, applied, sat a test, interviewed and competed against external applicants)
New job starts 10 days AFTER the date they wanted me to retain.
they are now saying i am not entitled to that payment as i am staying with the company - even though i 'retained' until the date they asked to help them out with training new starters at the new location.
How does that sound? illegal / pants / not very decent / not cricket / BAU ?
Others may well comment with qualified views but my thoughts just in case they don't
I assume that by 'retain' you mean an extension to your notice period and that you were still employed at the time of finding the new role
By the way the payment is described as tax free were they dressing it up as 'redundancy payment' even they they didn't have any obligations due to your length of service?
I think what they have done is entirely correct (even if it sticks in the throat a bit) as you have not been made redundant, now of course you have continuous service which will start to give you better employment rights soon (check the new offer references continuous employment from your original start date as well as a start date for the new role)
I assume that by 'retain' you mean an extension to your notice period and that you were still employed at the time of finding the new role
By the way the payment is described as tax free were they dressing it up as 'redundancy payment' even they they didn't have any obligations due to your length of service?
I think what they have done is entirely correct (even if it sticks in the throat a bit) as you have not been made redundant, now of course you have continuous service which will start to give you better employment rights soon (check the new offer references continuous employment from your original start date as well as a start date for the new role)
My initial reaction is to wonder what you are complaining about. You were almost out of a job, but you have remained employed. But, hey: please summarise or PM me copies of any letters, emails etc setting out the terms on which the payment was offered.
Continuity of employment does not depend on a recitation in a letter, BTW. You either have it, or you don't.
Continuity of employment does not depend on a recitation in a letter, BTW. You either have it, or you don't.
I've understood that as notice given meaning you should leave on day 30, they asked you remain until day 60 but your new role starts on day 40.
As long as you are paid for those 10 extra days I don't see the problem either. Overall your bank balance will be lower than if you had received the tax-free payment, but you have a job.
As long as you are paid for those 10 extra days I don't see the problem either. Overall your bank balance will be lower than if you had received the tax-free payment, but you have a job.
my frustration is that 90% of the group that were made redundant jumped ship and found other employment outside of work - this made it harder for the remaining to find work as what we do is quite specialist and highly localised.
I had no idea when i agreed to stay and help out (and retain) if i would be able to find work a month after everyone else.
The way i see it, i was offered retention to cushion the risk of leaving later than everyone else i am taking more of a risk in order to help the company.
i got the new job off my own back, there was no concessions for the fact i already work in a different area of the business.
I had no idea when i agreed to stay and help out (and retain) if i would be able to find work a month after everyone else.
The way i see it, i was offered retention to cushion the risk of leaving later than everyone else i am taking more of a risk in order to help the company.
i got the new job off my own back, there was no concessions for the fact i already work in a different area of the business.
StuTheGrouch said:
I've understood that as notice given meaning you should leave on day 30, they asked you remain until day 60 but your new role starts on day 40.
As long as you are paid for those 10 extra days I don't see the problem either. Overall your bank balance will be lower than if you had received the tax-free payment, but you have a job.
no, i should leave on day 60 (30 day notice and 30 day retention) but i have a new job in a different area of the business that starts on day 70.As long as you are paid for those 10 extra days I don't see the problem either. Overall your bank balance will be lower than if you had received the tax-free payment, but you have a job.
You still haven't sufficiently indicated the terms of the deal. If the company made you an unconditional promise in return for something from you, you may have a beef, but perhaps the promise was conditional on an event that has not occurred. If you seek advice, you have to state the key facts.
Your second question invalidates your opinion, at least temporarily. You first have to find out if there was a contract (written, oral, or to be inferred from conduct) relating to the payment. Only once you know about the contract, if there was one, can you take a view on whether the company has to pay.
Breadvan72 said:
Your second question invalidates your opinion, at least temporarily. You first have to find out if there was a contract (written, oral, or to be inferred from conduct) relating to the payment. Only once you know about the contract, if there was one, can you take a view on whether the company has to pay.
"Has" to pay this is the key here. I believe legally they don't have to, it was a case of morally i think I've earned it ..
PixelpeepS3 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Your second question invalidates your opinion, at least temporarily. You first have to find out if there was a contract (written, oral, or to be inferred from conduct) relating to the payment. Only once you know about the contract, if there was one, can you take a view on whether the company has to pay.
"Has" to pay this is the key here. I believe legally they don't have to, it was a case of morally i think I've earned it ..
edc said:
Is the company going to terminate your employment and will there in fact be a break in your service? Will the new role, as part of the group of companies, enable you to maintain continuity of service?
That also matters.If it starts from scratch I would certainly want the retention payment.
Breadvan72 said:
PixelpeepS3 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Your second question invalidates your opinion, at least temporarily. You first have to find out if there was a contract (written, oral, or to be inferred from conduct) relating to the payment. Only once you know about the contract, if there was one, can you take a view on whether the company has to pay.
"Has" to pay this is the key here. I believe legally they don't have to, it was a case of morally i think I've earned it ..
Nothing has happened to me and I have no idea what you are talking about. I would gladly offer a view on your conundrum, but I can't do that without some facts. Sorry, but I just don't do opinions on any subject without some sort of data to base the opinion on*. I realise that this is not very PH, but call me eccentric if you will.
* Except cars. I am happy to opine about cars while knowing f
k all about them. Because PH'er.
* Except cars. I am happy to opine about cars while knowing f
k all about them. Because PH'er.If it is continuous employment within the company then no retention payment. If it is a new start then possibly a payment. My thoughts are, the company will say take a hike as we have let you stay, even if you did the tests etc, there must of been some element of it's better the devil you know.
Your comment to BV is odd, opinions are just that and likely to be very wide of the mark and could put you in a predicament. At least he was offering some proper legal guidance for free, and you don't get that often. However, each to their own.
Your comment to BV is odd, opinions are just that and likely to be very wide of the mark and could put you in a predicament. At least he was offering some proper legal guidance for free, and you don't get that often. However, each to their own.
swerni said:
They were going to pay you 1 month tax free as you were leaving.
You aren't leaving now, you've got a job.
Two options
Option one, don't take the new job and get your month tax free and you win.
Option two, stop being a dick and be thankful you aren't unemployed.
Why do you think they "morally" owe you tax free income?
Clearly it's just me but being offered money to risk not looking for work and leaving the company when you should in order to train those who are taking your job and then have it taken away because when i do eventually start looking for work it happens to be with the same company ?!You aren't leaving now, you've got a job.
Two options
Option one, don't take the new job and get your month tax free and you win.
Option two, stop being a dick and be thankful you aren't unemployed.
Why do you think they "morally" owe you tax free income?
isn't that like a punter asking Camelot for his £2 back cos he didn't win the lottery?!
i was offered money to take a risk, i took the risk, it paid off but now they don't want to pay me.
clearly it's just me who finds this a little unfair. oh well.
I think it's unfair too , to be honest.
The way I see it
- You were employed by a company
- You were made redundant, thus ending your employment.
- They offered you a retention payment to stay on and train other people, or do whatever. Which you agreed to.
- You applied for a new role starting AFTER the retention period (so after you have completed the contract offered with regards to the retention period). This role just happened to be at the same company you worked at
- Company is now saying retention payment is not needing to be honoured as you got the job you applied for
However as I have said before it really depends on the contract you have!!!!!!!!
what was actually said / discussed . Do you have a contract with regards to the retention payment?
Is your previous service being carried over or not?
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT IMO.
If your previous service is not being honoured then I would very much push for the retention payment
If it's not, then I maybe wouldn't , as you have now further protection with regards to future redundancy, dismissal, etc.
Can you speak to HR about it? Bearing in mind HR are there to generally protect the company rather than the employee.
The way I see it
- You were employed by a company
- You were made redundant, thus ending your employment.
- They offered you a retention payment to stay on and train other people, or do whatever. Which you agreed to.
- You applied for a new role starting AFTER the retention period (so after you have completed the contract offered with regards to the retention period). This role just happened to be at the same company you worked at
- Company is now saying retention payment is not needing to be honoured as you got the job you applied for
However as I have said before it really depends on the contract you have!!!!!!!!
what was actually said / discussed . Do you have a contract with regards to the retention payment?
Is your previous service being carried over or not?
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT IMO.
If your previous service is not being honoured then I would very much push for the retention payment
If it's not, then I maybe wouldn't , as you have now further protection with regards to future redundancy, dismissal, etc.
Can you speak to HR about it? Bearing in mind HR are there to generally protect the company rather than the employee.
xjay1337 said:
I think it's unfair too , to be honest.
The way I see it
- You were employed by a company
- You were made redundant, thus ending your employment.
- They offered you a retention payment to stay on and train other people, or do whatever. Which you agreed to.
- You applied for a new role starting AFTER the retention period (so after you have completed the contract offered with regards to the retention period). This role just happened to be at the same company you worked at
- Company is now saying retention payment is not needing to be honoured as you got the job you applied for
However as I have said before it really depends on the contract you have!!!!!!!!
what was actually said / discussed . Do you have a contract with regards to the retention payment?
Is your previous service being carried over or not?
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT IMO.
If your previous service is not being honoured then I would very much push for the retention payment
If it's not, then I maybe wouldn't , as you have now further protection with regards to future redundancy, dismissal, etc.
Can you speak to HR about it? Bearing in mind HR are there to generally protect the company rather than the employee.
they are classing it as continuous employment and my new job offer states 'they have found me alternative employment'The way I see it
- You were employed by a company
- You were made redundant, thus ending your employment.
- They offered you a retention payment to stay on and train other people, or do whatever. Which you agreed to.
- You applied for a new role starting AFTER the retention period (so after you have completed the contract offered with regards to the retention period). This role just happened to be at the same company you worked at
- Company is now saying retention payment is not needing to be honoured as you got the job you applied for
However as I have said before it really depends on the contract you have!!!!!!!!
what was actually said / discussed . Do you have a contract with regards to the retention payment?
Is your previous service being carried over or not?
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT IMO.
If your previous service is not being honoured then I would very much push for the retention payment
If it's not, then I maybe wouldn't , as you have now further protection with regards to future redundancy, dismissal, etc.
Can you speak to HR about it? Bearing in mind HR are there to generally protect the company rather than the employee.
to be fair our HR team do not have our best interests at heart - the company is relocating due to growth so its full steam ahead and they have already written us off and trying to get it done spending the minimum amount possible.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff