Forced to work out notice with no work to do

getmore4less · 17 February 2015 at 10:55AM

That's what consultation is about it allows for things to change until the business sticks you on notice with terms, even then in redundancy situations they can withdraw the redundancy right up to the last day and remove the compensation elements.

There is no reason they can't just let people go and pay them over the months if they want to if/and that's how the money will be available, there may be other reasons behind the change in plan that they are not getting told.

They could also offer garden leave on terms that allow them to work elsewhere, subject to another employer being happy with it.

How many people, how long was the consultation period if they are on notice

TBagpuss · 17 February 2015 at 3:39PM

What is his contractual notice period? i.e.if he was not made redundant, but simply handed in is notice?

If that is less than 3 months, then he can simply hand in his notice and leave.

If he has no work to do then there is no reason for the company to be averse to letting him leave sooner rather than later.

However, if he is expecting to be allowed to leave early but still to claim for the 3 months pay then he is being greedy and unrealistic.

Has he actually approached them and asked whether they will agree to his leaving in 2 weeks time, and simply being paid for those 2 weeks plus any accrued holiday to the end of that 2 week period?

If not, why not?

it's win/win - he gets to take up the new job, has no period when he isn't working so has income throughout, and the company gets to save 2 months pay.

As a PP said, he is not entitled to statutory redundancy pay, and on 1.5 years service would only be entitled to 1 week's pay if he was. What is his contractual entitlement to redundancy pay?

Is it possible that the person he has spoken to has not realised that he has less than 2 years service so no entitlement to statutory redundancy pay, and is applying a guideline or internal procedure inappropriately? If so, it may be sensible for your friend to speak to the main HR department rather than his immediate manager , to try to sort this out.

silvercar · 17 February 2015 at 4:46PM

Thanks for your comments.

...

getmore4less · 17 February 2015 at 6:02PM

Thinking more on how long from being first notified(must have been obvious if the work stopped) to getting written notice of termination with thework three months, then the grievance.

Did they not discuss the various scenarios of people getting work even in the original 4 weeks, really important to cover the angles during consultation before you get to the point of trying to negotiate exits

getmore4less · 17 February 2015 at 6:12PM

Just to be clear did they give official notice to terminate with a finish date of a month with a pilon payment for the other 2 months notice?

Another_not_new_user · 17 February 2015 at 8:27PM

dori2o wrote: »

Would you like to quote this Law which states you must work the full notice period?
.

Love to - it is called the whole body of contract law, and until that contract is varied by mutual agreement then you work your notice or you are in breach of the law. Just because it can be varied does not mean it must be. His employer required him to work his notice and contract law says that is his legal obligation. So a grievance against something that is law is pointless! "I object to you requiring me to fulfil my contractual obligation". Seriously?

On the other hand, there is a law disputing your assertion that "In fact in the case of redundancy there is no requirement to give any more than the contractual amount." It is called the Redundancy Payments Act, and it says that the employer must give contractual or statutory notice whichever is the longer period. And the employee can only give counter notice in the statutory period - which in this case is the final week of their contractual notice period.

As others have said, being sued for breach of contract is not common. But it does happen. And so telling someone that they are not required to pay any attention to their contractual obligations because it isn't a legal obligation is foolish - it is and that is why there is a possibility of being sued. You can't sue someone for not breaching the law!

getmore4less · 17 February 2015 at 8:47PM

Accrued unused holiday would be due but they would be generous to not have them take this ASAP if they have them on 3 months notice doing nothing.

silvercar · 17 February 2015 at 10:11PM

getmore4less wrote: »

Accrued unused holiday would be due but they would be generous to not have them take this ASAP if they have them on 3 months notice doing nothing.

I appreciate that, I meant if he walked out with say 2 weeks notice, would he still be entitled to the holiday pay accrued to that date.

silvercar · 17 February 2015 at 10:13PM

I am grateful for your comments.

I will report back on the final outcome in due course, in the mean time I have removed some of my comments at my friends request.

silvercar · 26 February 2015 at 10:48AM

For those that were following, it has been decided in his favour. Ruling that (a) he was originally given to understand he wouldn't have to work notice and (b) compounded with the lack of work it would be reasonable for him to assume that he wasn't required to work. But it is assumed in not wanting to work out notice that he knows that he was made redundant a month ago, so two months to go.

Forced to work out notice with no work to do

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free