voluntary redundancy
Discussion
posting this on behalf of someone else,
a person has been made redundant from a company due to lack of money in said company. de to the informal nature of how the company had been being run (all friends etc) there had not actually been any employment contracts etc, and the proper methods of dismaissal were not followed. The redundant person needs a letter of redundancy to show to his bank. Is there a way of phrasing it so that it minimises or eliminates the possibility of tribunals etc. in the future? Or is there anything else that can be done? unfortunately a speedy answer is needed and the lawyers are too slow, apparently. thanks for help!
a person has been made redundant from a company due to lack of money in said company. de to the informal nature of how the company had been being run (all friends etc) there had not actually been any employment contracts etc, and the proper methods of dismaissal were not followed. The redundant person needs a letter of redundancy to show to his bank. Is there a way of phrasing it so that it minimises or eliminates the possibility of tribunals etc. in the future? Or is there anything else that can be done? unfortunately a speedy answer is needed and the lawyers are too slow, apparently. thanks for help!
If a person was made redundant, they have not been dismissed. The procedures for a dismissal are much more involved than straightforward redundancy.
Redundancy is brought about when economic factors mean that the individual's job or role in the enterprise can no longer be supported. If the chap HAD to be made redundant, then there would have been no sret procedure required other than maybe a letter or even a verbal meeeting explaining the circumstances to the person affected.
A person genuinely made redundant will usually have no real come-back against the employer.
Redundancy is brought about when economic factors mean that the individual's job or role in the enterprise can no longer be supported. If the chap HAD to be made redundant, then there would have been no sret procedure required other than maybe a letter or even a verbal meeeting explaining the circumstances to the person affected.
A person genuinely made redundant will usually have no real come-back against the employer.
Eric Mc said:
If a person was made redundant, they have not been dismissed. The procedures for a dismissal are much more involved than straightforward redundancy.
Redundancy is brought about when economic factors mean that the individual's job or role in the enterprise can no longer be supported. If the chap HAD to be made redundant, then there would have been no sret procedure required other than maybe a letter or even a verbal meeeting explaining the circumstances to the person affected.
A person genuinely made redundant will usually have no real come-back against the employer.
Not so Eric.
Under new rules introduced in October 2004, redundancy needs to go through the same procedures as, say a disciplinary.
i.e. written advice of a meeting, setting out reasons (in this case potential redundancy), who will attend, who can attend etc.
If these rules are not followed the redundancy is automatically unfair.
Just goes to show how fast things change.
All the same, redundancy is USUALLY a more straightforward situation compared to dismissal. Dismissal usually happens when the employee has either transgressed and/or failed to match standards of work or behaviour. It is much more important in those circumstances to define exactly to the employee why their employment is being terminated. If the employer fails to follow the fairly strict procedures set out in employment law, the employee might have a case for unfair dismissal. Even if the dismissal is found NOT to have been unfair, the employer could still end up in trouble merely for failing to follow the correct procedures.
Where "redundancy" can cause problems is when the employee is made "redundant" in the normal way but finds out later on that their position has been filled by a new employee - in other words, the job was never redundant in the first place.
All the same, redundancy is USUALLY a more straightforward situation compared to dismissal. Dismissal usually happens when the employee has either transgressed and/or failed to match standards of work or behaviour. It is much more important in those circumstances to define exactly to the employee why their employment is being terminated. If the employer fails to follow the fairly strict procedures set out in employment law, the employee might have a case for unfair dismissal. Even if the dismissal is found NOT to have been unfair, the employer could still end up in trouble merely for failing to follow the correct procedures.
Where "redundancy" can cause problems is when the employee is made "redundant" in the normal way but finds out later on that their position has been filled by a new employee - in other words, the job was never redundant in the first place.
Eric Mc said:
Just goes to show how fast things change.
All the same, redundancy is USUALLY a more straightforward situation compared to dismissal.
I would actually disagree with that too! It all largely depends on the situation, but redundancy can also be oh so tricky.
I've sacked probably tens of people, and made redundant hundreds. Each has its own set of problems.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff