Is this a lie by omission?

finsaah

My friend has just been told that his redundancy package is no longer available to him as he showed interest in an was accepted for a position which the company feels is similar to what he does now. He feels as if he was pressured into showing an interest into a job he didn't really want. He's been at the company for nearly 20 years so was due to receive a substantial package.

In meetings with HR, the question was asked a number of times of would a job have to be taken if offered. The answer was always in the negative. This question was also asked in writing and answered as below. This is the exact question and answer involved.

"Q; If offered redeployment, will this be an option along with redundancy or will this be compulsory resulting in no severance package if the job was refused?

HR answer:
Ø It is always our first intention to support you and retain you in the business; therefore we would always look for suitable alternative roles for you.
Ø If the role was very different to what you currently do, we would offer you a trial period.
Ø Trial periods enable the business to retain talent and allow for you as employee’s to have the opportunity to try a new role without risking your redundancy package.
Ø At the end of this trial period, if the role is not suitable, your redundancy package would still be available."

It seems to me as if this counts as a lie of omission as at no time during the redundancy process was it mentioned that a similar job would be compulsory if the company so chose. As you can see above, the question is very general and IMO any answer should have been complete.

Any help would be GREATLY appreciated as this also affect many others in the business.

Pete111

Does the company agree that this role is 'very different' and that a trial period is/was in operation?

If so then they should be referred back to the trial period Q&A. The argument is that company policy (as supplied and written) allows a trial on both sides and as such if your friend wants out during the trial the redundancy payment should apply.

If not and the job is similar then the company has not promised anything in writing (as you say they have perhaps been a touch sly in ommitting to do this but...) and it's your friends word against theirs. They are most likely able to treat a 'similar role' redeployment that is terminated by the employee as a resignation.

Were there any witnesses / notes of the conversation with HR where they said no job would be compulsary?

The best bet for everyone else? Get confirmation in writing before taking up a new role that a trial period is in operation.

greenbee

If the company believe that the role is a 'suitable alternative' to the role that has been made redundant, then they can appoint you to it (even if you don't express interest - redundancy isn't an automatic right in these situations).

If you friend does not want to take this role, then he needs to speak to his employee/union rep if he has one, and identify and document substantial differences between his old role and the new one. If these are agreed, he will then be covered by the redeployment/trial period agreement.

finsaah

My question wasn't referring to rights and what a company is allowed to do (we all know that laws are there to protect companies rather than individuals). Different companys have different policies and a question was asked on the company's policy. This question clearly asks if a redundancy package would be taken away if a job was refused. It's now been revealed that it would be the case. It was not mentioned in the answer to the question. If it was known at the time, then why was it not mention specifically that in certain circumstances you would have no choice?

SueSueSue; I don't really think the trial period answer covers the question of redundancy money. I also think the statement "try to retain" could be construed as the company would actively help you in finding an alternative position in the company.

The fact is that over a peroid of months (in fact, before redundancies were even announced - at a time when the company denied that this was the plan) the question was repeatedly asked whether anyone would be forced to accept any jobs. The answer was never "yes" in any way, shape or form.

If this isn't classed as a lie, then I lose my faith in humanity.

Apologies if this is an over-emotional response - all answers have been appreciated!

Andy_L

finsaah wrote: »

This question clearly asks if a redundancy package would be taken away if a job was refused. It's now been revealed that it would be the case. It was not mentioned in the answer to the question.

"At the end of this trial period, if the role is not suitable, your redundancy package would still be available."

To me that means that if the role is suitable then the redundancy package would not be avaliable.

Pete111

finsaah wrote: »

My question wasn't referring to rights and what a company is allowed to do (we all know that laws are there to protect companies rather than individuals). Different companys have different policies and a question was asked on the company's policy. This question clearly asks if a redundancy package would be taken away if a job was refused. It's now been revealed that it would be the case. It was not mentioned in the answer to the question. If it was known at the time, then why was it not mention specifically that in certain circumstances you would have no choice?

SueSueSue; I don't really think the trial period answer covers the question of redundancy money, does it? I also think the statement "try to retain" could be construed as the company would actively help you in finding an alternative position in the company.

The fact is that over a peroid of months (in fact, before redundancies were even announced - at a time when the company denied that this was the plan) the question was repeatedly asked whether anyone would be forced to accept any jobs. The answer was never "yes" in any way, shape or form.

If this isn't classed as a lie, then I lose my faith in humanity.

They may have lied to you verbally. They do not appear (from what you have posted) to have lied to you in writing however - this makes things difficult to prove.

The trial period goes directly to the question of redundancy pay IMHO . ie if the company agrees there is a trial period then the option of an employees saying 'I gave it a go but it's not for me ' and taking redundancy pay is retained. If there is no trial period it's because the company sees the role as a like for like redeployment and there is no automatic right to redundancy pay if you choose to leave - simple as that really.

I agree that if the company has changed their tune between issuing verbal and written communication it's shoddy but Sue is technically correct. I think her assertion that the companies written statement is reasonably clear is one that would likely be echoed by a tribunal

At the end of the day your friend still has a job...

finsaah

I won't say that the answers don't depress me (and surprise me in their negativity). To me it is still dishonest to deliberately omit part of the information (information that clearly would affect decisions made by members of staff) but I guess the law doesn't see it that way.

CFC

finsaah wrote: »

I won't say that the answers don't depress me (and surprise me in their negativity). To me it is still dishonest to deliberately omit part of the information (information that clearly would affect decisions made by members of staff) but I guess the law doesn't see it that way.

How would it affect decisions? If it's a suitable alternative then there's no decision in fact to be made. There is only a decision to be made if it isn't a like-for-like job, and in that case, the decision is still there after the trial period. If your friend is convinced that it's neither like for like nor a suitable alternative he could leave and then claim through a tribunal re redundancy.

Or do you mean that people have hung on instead of leaving because they thought ££££s were coming their way if they stayed and took redundancy? (ie not interested in a job, just wanted a payout?)

Of course he may have had an exceptionally good redundancy package in his contract - but if he didn't, he'd find the statutory minimum is pretty bad, and if you've been employed by one company for 20 yrs your chances of finding another job elsewhere are not fantastic. So he might want to count his blessings really....

robpw2

the way i see it finsaah is your friend is very lucky they still have a job
yes they may not have a bonus now but this would be very short lived once the bills get paid and you wouldnt be able to claim means tested benfits with money from redundancy in the bank

he hasnt got the stress of worrying if hell find a new job like many people are
he will still be getting a wage