Redundancy question and "settlement agreement"
Discussion
My other half has just accepted redundancy.
However, she has been contacted by HR who said:
Is this standard practice now?
If so, can anyone recommend a suitable solicitor based on past experience, and what is this likely to cost, given that the company has offered £300 towards it!
And another interesting phrase that was in the email:
Thanks in advance.
However, she has been contacted by HR who said:
HR said:
The next steps are for me to provide you with the settlement agreement, which as discussed needs to be reviewed by an employment law solicitor on your behalf. <company> will cover the costs of up to £300 for the review of this document.
Neither of us have ever heard of a so called "settlement agreement" (in a redundancy situation) and also needing a solicitor to review it?Is this standard practice now?
If so, can anyone recommend a suitable solicitor based on past experience, and what is this likely to cost, given that the company has offered £300 towards it!
And another interesting phrase that was in the email:
HR said:
....protected conversation regarding the redundancy of your role....
"protected conversation?"Thanks in advance.
dont know if its standard but i had this.
i found a local a solicitor specialising in employment law easily after a quick google search.
On the subject of costs......£300 is similar to what my employer paid. I made the mistake when speaking to the solicitor - I told my solicitor that my company was offering up to £350 plus VAT to review the agreement just before I asked them what their fee was and after hearing the guy on the end of the phone give me a sort of james bond villain false laugh down the phone he then proceeded to tell me "well funnily enough we charge exactly £350 plus VAT".
OK its not my money so why get rattled but I thought "crook" as soon as he said that. right up to the maximum contribution. Wish I had kept my trap shut as they might have said stand fee around £250 plus VAT - it was less than 1 hours face to face work plus some handling of correspondence between me and HR.
if your partner was in a sales or service role she might have a non compete clause in their.
if she was unhappy in the job caused by stress or bullying etc and was thinking about taking the employer to court the agreement might have a clause which prevents your partner bringing any such action.
I asked for a clause to be inserted which allowed me to pursue the employer if I felt my name had been blacklisted or tarnished in the industry I was in by my employer or one of its employees or agents.
hope that helps.......
i found a local a solicitor specialising in employment law easily after a quick google search.
On the subject of costs......£300 is similar to what my employer paid. I made the mistake when speaking to the solicitor - I told my solicitor that my company was offering up to £350 plus VAT to review the agreement just before I asked them what their fee was and after hearing the guy on the end of the phone give me a sort of james bond villain false laugh down the phone he then proceeded to tell me "well funnily enough we charge exactly £350 plus VAT".
OK its not my money so why get rattled but I thought "crook" as soon as he said that. right up to the maximum contribution. Wish I had kept my trap shut as they might have said stand fee around £250 plus VAT - it was less than 1 hours face to face work plus some handling of correspondence between me and HR.
if your partner was in a sales or service role she might have a non compete clause in their.
if she was unhappy in the job caused by stress or bullying etc and was thinking about taking the employer to court the agreement might have a clause which prevents your partner bringing any such action.
I asked for a clause to be inserted which allowed me to pursue the employer if I felt my name had been blacklisted or tarnished in the industry I was in by my employer or one of its employees or agents.
hope that helps.......
davek_964 said:
Had exactly the same when we were all made redundant a few years back - I think it is fairly standard, especially if they are offering more than statutory minimum.
It's a requirement/best practice and ensures the employee is being well advised by professional and independent advice against a legal agreement (that will probably be fairly standard).OP, your other half may want to dig more into the circumstances of her redundancy.
Apologies if you know this already, but a settlement agreement is what used to be called a compromise agreement. It's an agreement under which an employee agrees to accept a payment (up to £30k tax free), in return for which they waive their rights to bring any of the employment related claims listed in the agreement, such as unfair dismissal.
If your other half is genuinely redundant, and if her employer followed the correct process in terms of selection, consultation etc, then her employer shouldn't need a settlement agreement. However, to have one is a sensible precaution from their perspective.
The fact that HR are referring to a protected conversation also seems strange - my understanding (employment law isn't my specialism) is that protected conversations (ie conversations which are inadmissable as evidence) are only available in unfair dismissal circumstances. For HR to say "protected conversation in relation to your redundancy" sounds wrong.
The independent advice is a requirement for a settlement agreement to be binding - it's a requirement precisely because the employee is waiving all claims.
£300 would be the per hour charging rate for a solicitor in London, junior partner in the provinces (depending on the size of firm).To charge that as a fixed fee for advising on a settlement agreement is actually pretty reasonable - although they're fairly standard, the solicitor needs to read it properly to discharge their duty of care to the client (and the solicitor has to sign a certificate to say they have advised the employee as to the effect of the agreement), and then there will be the time taken for the actual meeting.
Your other half may want to invest money (or see if she can find someone who will do the first meeting for free) to chat through in detail the circumstances of her redundancy to see if there is something more to it.
At this point I must defer to Breadvan72, who knows way more about this stuff than I do.
Apologies if you know this already, but a settlement agreement is what used to be called a compromise agreement. It's an agreement under which an employee agrees to accept a payment (up to £30k tax free), in return for which they waive their rights to bring any of the employment related claims listed in the agreement, such as unfair dismissal.
If your other half is genuinely redundant, and if her employer followed the correct process in terms of selection, consultation etc, then her employer shouldn't need a settlement agreement. However, to have one is a sensible precaution from their perspective.
The fact that HR are referring to a protected conversation also seems strange - my understanding (employment law isn't my specialism) is that protected conversations (ie conversations which are inadmissable as evidence) are only available in unfair dismissal circumstances. For HR to say "protected conversation in relation to your redundancy" sounds wrong.
The independent advice is a requirement for a settlement agreement to be binding - it's a requirement precisely because the employee is waiving all claims.
£300 would be the per hour charging rate for a solicitor in London, junior partner in the provinces (depending on the size of firm).To charge that as a fixed fee for advising on a settlement agreement is actually pretty reasonable - although they're fairly standard, the solicitor needs to read it properly to discharge their duty of care to the client (and the solicitor has to sign a certificate to say they have advised the employee as to the effect of the agreement), and then there will be the time taken for the actual meeting.
Your other half may want to invest money (or see if she can find someone who will do the first meeting for free) to chat through in detail the circumstances of her redundancy to see if there is something more to it.
At this point I must defer to Breadvan72, who knows way more about this stuff than I do.
Edited by Europa1 on Wednesday 19th September 14:01
edc said:
Settlement agreement is akin to compromise agreement. Protected conversation whilst not the same as, is similar to "without prejudice" meetings.
That's interesting, as at the top of one of the emails is stated:"Without prejudice and subject to contract". (in bold)
Europa1 said:
Helpful stuff.
My O/H waived the initial consultation process (she only just told me this whilst reading your post back to her)..I'm hoping that HR are just trying to do things "by the book" and that nothing odd is going on here.
Thanks for all the replies so far.
It’s standard when the company want you to go quietly without arguing, usually accompanied by a settlement larger than the statutory amount.
As is the payment for legal advice, I went to my next door neighbour (a partner in a law firm) who gave it to one of his juniors to sort out.
It’s important as they’ll spell out any non disclosure clauses & explain which rights you’re forfeiting.
Tell ‘em how much you’ve got to spend & they’ll either take it on or recommend someone who will.
Nine times out of ten you’d be mad not to sign & take the money, then you can just quietly seethe when you see your job advertised 6 months later.
Protected conversation...no clue but I’ll have a guess at what it means, no doubt someone will be along to correct me before too long...
As is the payment for legal advice, I went to my next door neighbour (a partner in a law firm) who gave it to one of his juniors to sort out.
It’s important as they’ll spell out any non disclosure clauses & explain which rights you’re forfeiting.
Tell ‘em how much you’ve got to spend & they’ll either take it on or recommend someone who will.
Nine times out of ten you’d be mad not to sign & take the money, then you can just quietly seethe when you see your job advertised 6 months later.
Protected conversation...no clue but I’ll have a guess at what it means, no doubt someone will be along to correct me before too long...
Edited by DJFish on Wednesday 19th September 20:15
DJFish said:
Protected conversation will most likely mean they don’t want you to discuss this with colleagues who may or may not be having similar conversations.
This is definitely not the intention of what protected conversations are meant to be. http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/withou...
It's not really redundancy if she is accepting a settlement agreement, but I've accepted one in the past and been made redundant as well. Settlement agreements just seem to be the new way to do the same thing. I don't see it as anything unusual to worry about. In both cases the offers included reclaiming independent legal advice and that part of the offer should cover what you need, basically an hours consultation. I gather it's a way they avoid the strict redundancy rules binding their hands in future.
Any decent sized solicitors practice with an employment specialist can review the agreement, make sure it's clear, regular and talk you through it.
The protected thing is that it is confidential on both parties, they do it so that employees cannot collude to hold out for more cash.
Any decent sized solicitors practice with an employment specialist can review the agreement, make sure it's clear, regular and talk you through it.
The protected thing is that it is confidential on both parties, they do it so that employees cannot collude to hold out for more cash.
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Wednesday 19th September 20:30
TonyRPH said:
edc said:
Settlement agreement is akin to compromise agreement. Protected conversation whilst not the same as, is similar to "without prejudice" meetings.
That's interesting, as at the top of one of the emails is stated:"Without prejudice and subject to contract". (in bold)
Europa1 said:
Helpful stuff.
My O/H waived the initial consultation process (she only just told me this whilst reading your post back to her)..I'm hoping that HR are just trying to do things "by the book" and that nothing odd is going on here.
Thanks for all the replies so far.
Edited by Europa1 on Wednesday 19th September 22:07
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff