When is an "enhanced redundancy package" not "enhanced"

BlueIsTheColour

If you are 48, then it is 19years at 1.5weeks, it doesnt work on the number of years you have been over 41 for, it goes off your age now, so you are 48, which puts you into the 1.5weeks for every year of service bracket

As for it being potentially discriminatory, I dont know what you could challenge that on, it could be sex discrimination if the bulk of PT workers are female?

Kaz101

Hi Blueisthecolour

I'd love it if you were right but this is the calculation from the BERR.gov.uk website:


"How are statutory redundancy payments calculated?

For each complete year of service, up to a maximum of 20 years, employees are entitled to:

• 0.5 week's pay for each full year of service where age was less than 22
• 1 week's pay for each full year of service where age was 22 or above, but less than 41
• 1.5 weeks' pay for each full year of service where age was 41 or above

The statutory redundancy payment is £5,355.00

Details of calculation:

1.0 x £238.00 x 12 = 12
1.5 x £238.00 x 7 = 10.5"

Thanks

Andy_L

Kaz101 wrote: »

Andy, grateful for your reply. That's interesting.

On the paperwork received it states - "salary for a part time employee is a pro-rating of a full time equivalent salary. The redundancy calculation is based on an employee's normal basic salary and will also reflect the pro-rating."

I took that to mean it will be based on my normal basic part time salary - £12,300 or £238 pw. Am I correct?

Or does it mean calculated on the basis you mentioned (which is obviously better!).

Hmm, vague wording, best to ask them. However you have legal protection from being treated "less-favourably" than full-timers, you'd feel rightly agreeved if you'd only worked part time last year & thus got ~1/2 the redundancy pay of someone with the same length of service but had been full time all the way.

Kaz101

Hi Andy

Thank you once again. I've asked our employee representative to request that the arrangements for part-time staff be clarified and requested examples of calculations. One of my colleagues has worked at the firm for 10 years, 9 of them full time, the last year part time, so yes, it doesnt seem fair that any proposed enhancement package should be based on her last year's part time salary.

sunshinejoclaire

My understanding is that if you are entitled to 1.5 weeks in any year then they cannot pay you less than that by law, regardless of what they are offering over and above this.

So for the years you are entitled to 1.5 weeks you are entitled to £357 as this is 1.5 of your weekly wage

BlueIsTheColour

Hi Kaz,

I stand corrected, I apologise for giving incorrect advice, having used the BERR ready reckoner, this is what it said for your circumstances

Your entitlement is 22.5 week(s) and that is £5355.

I hope you manage to get it sorted, it does seem wrong if the full time employees are getting better packages than the PT ones, and could be worth a call to ACAS to ask their opinion of it.....

anniecave

I had always understood that redundancy pay amounts are based on your terms of employment at time of leaving. So if you are part time now, the amount you get is based on this. If it went the other way and you went from part time to full time, then your calculation would be based on the full time amount. The logic behind this is that redundancy is based on what you would have continued to earn, had you stayed on (but with variations based on how long you have worked for the company and how old you are)

So I would calculate it as 1.5 (due to your age) x 19 years x 238
I may be wrong in that though.....

Blue is the colour - what is the logic behind 22.5 ?

BlueIsTheColour

Annie, I also misunderstood, but Kaz is right, as per BERR's guidance, it is one week for every year up to age 41 and then 1.5 weeks from age 42, so 12 weeks and then 10.5 weeks, making the 22.5weeks due in total

As for the question about the full timers getting a better enhanced package, am still not sure about that, but I will be trying to find out, just to solve my own curiosity if nothing else, as I suspect by the time I do Kaz will already have found out!

Kaz101

Hi Anniecave

I can understand the reasoning behind that, but since flexible working I wonder if it would still be correct to work on that premise - I have changed from full time to alternate weeks to 2 days a week throughout my time with them, a colleague of mine has just changed from full time to 2 days a week a year ago to care for a parent ... so she would go back full time sometime in the future, I may also have gone back full time once my children were older?

My preference (of course!) and what most of us part timers who have at one time been full time are asking for is for our full time service to be pro-rated as Andy L's explanation above....

Blueisthecolour - I'll let you know how it pans out!

BlueIsTheColour

Good luck with it Kaz, I checked and it is definitely paid out at the rate of your contract at the time, with no inclusion or credit for any full time years, sorry to say. Also with regards to it being "enhanced" again this can be done this way, as they are just paying everyone based on their contracts, as opposed to the statutory minimum,