Signing Compromise Agreement

Pete111

That was a bit silly of them but your lawyer would be best placed to advise here.

Generally speaking it is a poor move to confim any redundancy before the final meeting as it opens the company up to claims of running a flawed consultation.

Kaz101

Thanks once again Pete! The real reason I think I was selected is because I have taken dependents leave on a number of occasions as I have a child who has a serious illness (and I know that companies cannot use that as a reason). My appeal was refused as I was told that as there were 5 ratings in the selection matrix and 6 on the evaluation sheets there could not be directly carried across and that others comments were taken into consideration. The majority of my evaluations were in the A/B category, with A coming next, but I was given a 2 in some categories on the selection matrix (which I would consider to be a C ...). However, realistically I know that they'll probably be able to come up with another argument if challenged again. I'm really grateful for yours and others advice, thank you.

Kaz101

I've now received a letter saying they will withdraw the CA anyway if I dont sign by tomorrow ... and I shant so I suppose that's that! Once again, thanks to everyone for advice.

Debt_Free_Chick

You may well have been pre-selected and the time off might well be the reason. Sometimes companies want to "get rid". But they have to "go through the process" as that is what the law requires. A compromise agreement usually offers the amount of money that a Tribunal would award. It's a way of saying "we want you to go, but we don't have a valid reason. If you went to Tribunal, you would probably win, so let's forget about the Tribunal and just give you the money anyway". You will never know if this is what they're doing.

The key point is .... is the amount they are offering you in line with a likely Tribunal award? Your solicitor has to advise you on that one. If it is, I'd be inclined to sign it, get the money and move on. By all means let your solicitor try and negotiate more - it's always worth "a try on", but don't let it drag out. If you do, you may have to go to Tribunal where - in addition to the stress and delay, you may end up with no more money and possibly a bit less! And, if you keep your solicitor on, you'll have those costs as well.

Weigh up your options carefully, but ask your solicitor whether the settlement offered is fair, average or good - compared to the likely tribunal award.

Debt_Free_Chick

Pete111 wrote: »

That was a bit silly of them but your lawyer would be best placed to advise here.

Generally speaking it is a poor move to confim any redundancy before the final meeting as it opens the company up to claims of running a flawed consultation.

But don't forget Polkey, Pete. If the process had been "perfect" would the outcome have been different? If no, then a Tribunal won't award anything extra.

Statutory plus two months sounds "average" to me and the risk of going to Tribunal and getting no more doesn't sound particularly tempting. Or have I missed something?

olly300

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

But don't forget Polkey, Pete. If the process had been "perfect" would the outcome have been different? If no, then a Tribunal won't award anything extra.

It depends what the OP is arguing.

If they think they have enough evidence to argue that it's not simply unfair dismissal but they "Suffer a detriment and/or dismissal due to requesting or taking paternity or adoption leave or time off to assist a dependant" then they can argue Polkey doesn't apply.

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Statutory plus two months sounds "average" to me and the risk of going to Tribunal and getting no more doesn't sound particularly tempting. Or have I missed something?

Going to a tribunal is a hassle and that is against a company doesn't know how to drag the process out longer, or try and find a technicality to get your case thrown out.

In addition as they will know they don't have to give you a reference you won't be able to look for alternative employment with ease, and the tribunal won't look kindly on your claims for monetary compensation due to this.

Debt_Free_Chick

olly300 wrote: »

It depends what the OP is arguing.

If they think they have enough evidence to argue that it's not simply unfair dismissal but they "Suffer a detriment and/or dismissal due to requesting or taking paternity or adoption leave or time off to assist a dependant" then they can argue Polkey doesn't apply.

I agree entirely, but it's proving that this is the reason for the selection. Difficult, if the company has a selection criteria and scored against it

Kaz101

The CA offers about £1,000 above statutory. I dont think thats reasonable for 20 years service. My solicitor also thinks its poor but I take on your comments re going to Tribunal etc - I'll try to negotiate a better settlement and take it from there.

Pete111

Several opinions being raised here - most of which are entirely valid!
There is rarely a 'right' answer in this scenario, just several options with risks attached to each

Long and short of it seems to be you jepordise only 1k (I realise that is relative) for kicking up a fuss that may get you rather more.

I would do it.

Kaz101

Thanks. I will take the stat as I think the £1k quite frankly is an insult! This is a huge well heeled firm who could do better for their staff. I'll post the outcome of my solicitor's letter ...

Once again, grateful for everyone's views.