Redundancy and Lack of Consultation

[ColuGav]

I have today found out that my other half is to be made redundant next week along with 35 other colleagues at the store she works at.

Am I correct in understanding from the government redundancy pages, that she would be entitled to a weeks pay in lieu of notice to take her up to the minimum mandated 2 weeks for an employee of 2 years?

Secondly, am I also correct in understanding that for redundancies of >19 a consultation needs to happen, and employees should be made aware formally that the business is considering redundancy, to happen at least 30 days prior to any dismissals taking effect? This hasn't happened.

Finally, is any of this changed by the fact many other of the company's 140+ stores are still trading and likely to remain open, but the company is in administration?

Thanks for any quick advice / experiences you have.
Gav

Edited by ColuGav on Friday 17th April 15:18

[Jasandjules]

Yes there must be a collective consultation.

[ColuGav]

Jasandjules said:

Yes there must be a collective consultation.

And this must happen regardless of the administration situation? She's been told that it doesn't apply due to that.

[Jasandjules]

ColuGav said:

And this must happen regardless of the administration situation? She's been told that it doesn't apply due to that.

Is it being run by the Administrators? Is it pre-pack or a going concern?

Are they actually paying the full redundancy payment? As the bottom line is if in Administration you really want to bail out in any event.

[ColuGav]

Jasandjules said:

Is it being run by the Administrators? Is it pre-pack or a going concern?

Are they actually paying the full redundancy payment? As the bottom line is if in Administration you really want to bail out in any event.

Details on redundancy pay is to come within next few days apparently. The administration is being reported widely in the media as a "light touch" administration which will likely narrow it down to the company.

[Jasandjules]

Well Administration of itself is NOT a basis to avoid the Legislation (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/part/IV/chapter/II/crossheading/duty-of-employer-to-consult-trade-union-representatives)

However special circumstances may arise which assist the Administrator - what specific reason are they giving?

In Clarkes v Bakers Union 1978 the CofA noted there must be "something out of the ordinary". A gentle wind down for example may not be enough...

[ColuGav]

Jasandjules said:

Well Administration of itself is NOT a basis to avoid the Legislation (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/part/IV/chapter/II/crossheading/duty-of-employer-to-consult-trade-union-representatives)

However special circumstances may arise which assist the Administrator - what specific reason are they giving?

In Clarkes v Bakers Union 1978 the CofA noted there must be "something out of the ordinary". A gentle wind down for example may not be enough...

It ultimately falls on the store remaining unprofitable due to the landlord refusing to a rent reduction request. No doubt current events will try to be leveraged.

[Jasandjules]

ColuGav said:

It ultimately falls on the store remaining unprofitable due to the landlord refusing to a rent reduction request. No doubt current events will try to be leveraged.

That does not appear to be a sufficient justification on the face of it.

[ColuGav]

Jasandjules said:

That does not appear to be a sufficient justification on the face of it.

Ok, I'll wait to see what the official letter says, and go from there. Everything has been verbal so far.

Your help this evening is much appreciated!

[Jasandjules]

No worries and good luck.