Redundancy and Age Discrimination

patanne

I would certainly argue if I wanted to get everyones redundancy money cut down to the statutory minimum. They may well do that if they think they are going to get legal challenges. That way they are squeaky clean & untouchable & all redundant employees are a lot worse off regardless of their age!

Loft_monster

Gosh upto now everyone has been very helpful. Obviously I don't want to ruin everyone else's redundancy but I am the only person being made redundant from my company at the moment and I know full well that everyone under 41 who has been made redundant in the past tries to get 4 weeks instead of three. Some have been successful, some haven't.

Personally I think I should get the same as somebody who's over 41 especially considering they get 4 weeks per year they have been there even the years they worked before 41.

londondulwich

Discrimination, in the legal sense, involves the less favourable treatment of others.

If you wish to use age discrimination as a ground of complaint you have to suffer some less favourable treatment on the grounds of your age.

The departure from the statutory age related formula is not of itself grounds for discrimination. It becomes discriminatory if the end result is that you are subjected to less favourable treatment

illmonkey

I just found out that after being made reduntant that as I am under 22 years old, I only get 1/2 a years pay for every year I have worked for the company.

This is rather annoying, as there are other collegues who have been made redundant who are older but do the same job, and therefore get more redundancy pay of 1 week per every year of work.

Why is this aloud and can I ask for my redundancy pay to be increased as I do not see 1 weeks pay per year as a lot to ask for in the first place.

McKneff

It is the government who sets these redundancy time limits . and you do have to have been employed a minium of 2 years before qualifying.

Up to 21 is half a weeks pay for each year of employment.
up to 41 1 weeks pay for each year of employment
Over 41 then its 1 and a half weeks pay for each year of employment.

You can ask but they will probably get a big fat No.

CFC

You should be pleased you are not 41 or over and being made redundant. You may see age discrimination laws as being a juicy little plum that could net you more cash; on the other hand redundancy after 41, or at 51, is no joke in a recession. Age discrimination is rife in recruitment, and the law makes no difference.

patanne

Sorry you thought I was unhelpful but in my experience the package deteriorates with each successive rounds until it is down to statutory. Is the deal in your contract of employment? If so & you've signed then you have accepted the terms. If you are the only one involved then by all means go for it & good luck! I DO hope you get it.

getmore4less

Loft_monster wrote: »

Gosh upto now everyone has been very helpful. Obviously I don't want to ruin everyone else's redundancy but I am the only person being made redundant from my company at the moment and I know full well that everyone under 41 who has been made redundant in the past tries to get 4 weeks instead of three. Some have been successful, some haven't.

Personally I think I should get the same as somebody who's over 41 especially considering they get 4 weeks per year they have been there even the years they worked before 41.

Find one of those that was successfull and use their case a lever.

Another option is to just ask for the 4 weeks when they say no and pay up the 3 weeks ask again for the 4 weeks, then put in a claim and let the tribunal decide.

Loft_monster

Thanks Getmoreforless, I can't use other people as an example because if an individual redundancy payout changes then that individual signs a compromise agreement and the agreement states that they cannot talk about what they received.

As for the comment about it being a 'Juicy Little Plum', I think that is incredibly insensitive, I did not ask to be made redundant, I've got a big mortgage, I'm losing a job I like and I'm stressed and worried about my future. Now I certainly do not wish to turn this thread into a question of whether or not I am correct in thinking that I deserve as much as a person who's a couple of years older than me, but I just ask that people who reply do so because they are interested in helping and for that I am very grateful.

fablanta

McKneff wrote: »

It is the government who sets these redundancy time limits . and you do have to have been employed a minium of 2 years before qualifying.

Up to 21 is half a weeks pay for each year of employment.
up to 41 1 weeks pay for each year of employment
Over 41 then its 1 and a half weeks pay for each year of employment.
.

The over 41 bit is wrong, it should read:
At 41 and over, its an extra half weeks pay for each year they were employed at age 41 and over NOT one and a half weeks pay for every year of their entire current employment.