Help 4 weeks notice issued back in March

utopiah

the company my husband is working for issued him with four weeks notice back in march. Just before the notice was up more work became available at a different site and he just carried on working assuming that his notice had been rescinded (this was never put in writing). Today he has received another letter informing him that he is at risk of redundancy again and he will be meeting with the managers on thursday to discuss this. My question is will he have to be issued with notice again or does the last one just roll on?

P.S he has worked for the company for 4 1/2 years

McKneff

I would have thought that they would have had to start the notice from scratch. He would also be entitled to 4 weeks redundancy pay if he is under 41, over 41 it is one and a half weeks for every year.

Hopefully not eh.

utopiah

thanks, I was hoping that is the case, I can't find any info on acas about it. And ...... um, he is over 41 sssH (age 45)

McKneff

In that case, i suppose depending when his birthday is he will be entitled to 6 weeks redundancy pay.

Hope he gets lucky though and gets to stay.

lol, you say ssh 45, he's in his prime man, wish mine was 45 again.

utopiah

he will get the six weeks redundancy pay. Am I right in thinking that they have to give him 4 weeks notice (a week for every year served) They are talking about them/him finishing a week on friday. Will they have to pay him for the full four weeks? There is also an issue with holiday pay, until recently he was told that he didn't get holiday pay as such, the holiday pay was included in his hourly rate of pay. This changed with the first wave of redundancies as I believe it may have been a tad dodgy.
my husband was given a letter about this with his notice in march but never returned the acceptance slip. Not sure how he stands on this will he get any unused holiday pay.

McKneff

Your right, he should get four weeks notice, as you say a week for every full year.

He was told isnt good enough, what was in his contract. But there again i dont know anything about the legalities of holiday pay.

Seems a tad dodgy to me too. Maybe worth giving ACAS a call.

getmore4less

redundancy calculations

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/employment/employment-legislation/employment-guidance/page33157.html

You need full years over 41 to get the 1.5wpy, work back from the termination date.

If he had been given notice before then there should have been a request to withdraw this by the company, but by letting him work and paying him then I think that would count as the notice being withdrawn and there no longer being at risk of redundancy and there is continuity of employment.

They have to start consultation and give notice again which will be 1 week per full year service.


The holiday pay situation is probably dodgy and there should be some entitlement if no paid holiday has been taken.

What did it say in the letter?

Pete111

Re the holiday pay. Common practice is to pay out all accrued but untaken holiday to point of termination - ie if he gets 20 days holiday and works 6 months of the holiday year without taking any holiday, he will be owed 10 days.

I know there has been some case law on this but it's not something I've looked into recently (we pay out as a matter of policy) I believe the law is on the side of the employee here (ie holiday pay will be owed) but you may need to check this.

utopiah

thanks for your replies. He has only taken two days off this year (good friday and easter Monday) I'm going to dig out the letter regarding holidays but think it said that he would get statuary holiday pay and that his rate would be amended to reflect this. Will ask hubby later what happened regarding this as not quite sure. Since he started with the firm 41/2 years ago he has never received a penny of holiday pay and he has always taken as many holidays as he wanted as long as reasonable notice was given they never seemed to mind and like i said before he was told holiday pay was in his hourly rate. Is this legal?

jamesd

Provided he's taken 4.8 weeks of holiday including bank holidays a year it's a bit legal. 4.8 weeks was the statutory minimum until April this year when it went up to 5.6 weeks.

He's supposed to have been getting that time as paid holiday time and he's entitled to pro-rata payment for any holiday's he's accumulated but not yet used. The holiday pay shouldn't have been described as included in his pay.

If he wasn't taking 4.8 weeks then he was losing holiday he was entitled to and can't get that back for past years.

McKneff

seems a bit hit & miss this sort of holiday pay arrangement. I hve never heard of it but i have only ever been given proper holidays and pay in my life. It must make it pretty impossible to police.
Look out for his contract and then come back to us