Valid "Notice" of Redundancy? Opinions required please

kernowayr

Employer has announced business is soon to relocate and that anyone not willing to relocate with it will be made redundant. This announcement has never been backed up in writing as yet - can it still be relied upon as emplyer having given "proper notice" to the affected employees?

Would appreciate your views on this.

kernowayr

Reason for relocation is, principally, downturn in business and a need to save costs (mainly rent of office space we occupy currently).

Small company so only 6 people affected other than employer themselves. No union available.

kernowayr

Relocation is over 40 mles away and approx. 5 miles from nearest useful public transport for most of us so we need to drive/have a car available to keep our jobs basically and lose c. £3K in petrol and sundy expenses we don't currently have every year from now on. There has been no offer of £ financial compensation if we take the relocate option.

UPDATE: Further conversation with employer today - original offer has changed from F/T (same job/same money) to P/T (same job/same rate/21hrs -vs- current 35 Hrs) - still new location = 40+ miles from existing office, rural location, no public transport etc.

Have preliminary said "not interested" but "want a letter" - employer not happy about giving such a thing (or paying in lieu of stat. notice for period beyond physical move) but has, reluctantly, agreed to give me something in writing tomorrow. Will keep you posted.

LittleVoice

kernowayr wrote: »

Employer has announced business is soon to relocate and that anyone not willing to relocate with it will be made redundant. This announcement has never been backed up in writing as yet - can it still be relied upon as emplyer having given "proper notice" to the affected employees?

Would appreciate your views on this.

Simple answer, IMHO, "No, notice given orally is not worth the paper it's not written on".

And, given the distance involved, you would be OK to refuse the offer of alternative employment.

Numpty_Monkey

I agree with LV, until you get it in writing
Its just gossip

ceridwen

There must be a legal definition somewheres of what constitutes a valid offer of "alternative employment". Obviously if the firm concerned was only moving literally down the road and all else was the same - then that would be a valid offer. That sort of distance away - I would seriously doubt. When you add the fact that the place is inaccessible by public transport - and I would imagine that at least some of the employees dont currently need to be able to use a car to get to the current location - then I would think its well worth while checking out what this legal definition of "valid alternative employment" is.

If the law would agree with you that it does NOT constitute this - then the employer has to give you redundancy terms to leave and this has to be in writing by law.

Of course - its not just a question of how many miles it is to travel - but of what it would be like to have to commute along the road concerned at Rush Hour (when the journey might very well take a lot longer than it was due to). If part of the journey lies through a busy urban area - then even a 2 mile journey could take quite some time at Rush Hour (voice of experience - recalling a 10 minute journey taking 40 minutes one time recently in my area!! - though I was on a bus, not in a car).

ceridwen

Numpty_Monkey wrote: »

I agree with LV, until you get it in writing
Its just gossip

....or scaremongering tactics by the employer. Its a frequent one for employers to try and tell staff that they can make them do what they want - when actually they cant at all - as the law doesnt let them:cool:

CFC

kernowayr wrote: »

Employer has announced business is soon to relocate and that anyone not willing to relocate with it will be made redundant. This announcement has never been backed up in writing as yet - can it still be relied upon as emplyer having given "proper notice" to the affected employees?

Would appreciate your views on this.

It is not proper notice until you get it in writing, but it is giving you a 'heads up' that this is the tack the company will be taking. This at least gives you the opportunity to consider your position prior to the formal process having started.

If the company is relocating 40 miles it looks like this would be a valid position for the company to take - so then it is down to individual employees as to whether they wish to relocate or be made redundant.

You need to understand and prepare for the fact that in the current financial climate the offer is likely to be as stated - stay or leave, ie there will be no 'compensation' or 'payrise' to account for your higher commuting costs. What decision you make when the time comes will depend on your other prospects of employment and what level of risk you are happy with and whether in fact you could commute or not.

The_Pedant

As I understand it, 'alternative employment' is usually considered on the basis of how similar it is to current positions. This would cover elements such as the skills required, status, and the level of pay.

As the new post would require additional travel time, leading to additional travel costs too, then I believe that would grant reasonable grounds to decline such an offer (assuming the pay was to remain the same).

CFC

Alternative employment is a total red herring here, Ceridwen was as usual off down the wrong track. There is no assumption from the OP that the employer was offering a relocation as alternative employment - they are warning of redundancies.

ceridwen

I would suggest that a very different location for ones employment (or you get made redundant) is "alternative employment" - same job but different location - hence NOT the exact job/location one contracted to in the first place.

<goes off thinking "maybe my education was lacking in some respects - I obviously dipped out on the lesson on how to be rude....would have come in handy on MSE sometimes.....>