Redundancy Advice Please!

jazzyman01

Yes is the simple answer. Companies can pay what they want in regard to redundancy just as they can pay enhanced sick pay rather than the statutory amount.

the_mackem

yes is the answer,what we will get a better package from europe jazzyman

Pete111

the_mackem wrote: »

yes is the answer,what we will get a better package from europe jazzyman

The Band or the Continent?



Not sure what either has to do with Redundancy policy within private companies. If your question is related to whether European legislation may mean higher stautory payments I doubt it - these levels are set by UK government (as they bl00dy well should be!!)

Also, not sure whay you are upset that some firms offer different or enhanced redundancy packages. There are always differences between companies as regards pay, hours and benefits to name just a few so why on earth not with redundancy terms?

the_mackem

you must be one of those with a big payout then pete:j just asking the question why the big difference,also with losing a whopping 70% of my private pension scheme with the company yeah im !!!!ed off.

Pete111

I wish - only been with my current firm 2 years so it's unlikely I would be buying a small castle or anything!

I guess in essence the reason is that it is totally at the companies discretion what they pay over statutory redundancy pay. Companies have no obligation to pay any more at all but some choose to provide a better safety net than others - luck of the draw really.

Sorry to hear about your pension though thats not good. I'm assuming that if things pick up in the markets over the next few years your losses will reduce or are you retiring shortly?

the_mackem

hope so pete. just turned 53 pete but was hoping to get out at 60ish.

bendix

Pete111 wrote: »

Remember Bendix, it's roles that get made redundant - not people

The role will be unchanged and refilled - hence no legitimate redundancy.

Not saying it can't be done (as before, there are always ways!) or that job shares are ideal - just in this context it doesn't work for me as a legitimate reason

P

precisely my point.

As a manager, he/she wants to do away with two part-time roles, and replace them with one fulltime role for a variety of business reasons.

bendix

sockpuppet wrote: »

There are no costs of hiring two part timers though - beacause we are both already there. The only additional cost would be two payslips each month instead of one!!
Also we have been carrying out the admin role on this basis for over a year with absolutely no problems at all. In fact its the full timer that causes more problems as she is inexperienced and due to this makes mistakes that have to keep being dealt with. Also I am the only other person in the office that is authorised to discuss details with the clients- so with me gone, there is nobody in the office who can deal with queries in the absence of the advisors!

You're wrong. There are fixed costs of hiring all workers and it makes much more economic sense to have one full-time worker rather than two part-time workers.

Admin costs, time taken to do tax compliance, any training costs, even down to silly things like firms treats such as parties, christmas lunches etc.

Pete will be able to give precise figures, but I think a person's salary equates to only around 60-70% of the total cost of employing a person when all such things are taken into account.

Being part-time will not make these administration costs any cheaper.

sockpuppet

I do see what you are saying - but i think really that any savings on that basis, in this case, would be so negligible that it wouldnt really be a legitimate business reason for the redundancies.
Maybe if they got rid of 40 part timers and replaced them with 20 full timers?? I dont know
But I think my main argument would be the way it has been carried out and also the fact that it was also obvious that they wanted to stop me taking any parental leave.
Also it all goes back to the company merger in August, they never complied with TUPE at all or gave us any information - I dont even know what my employers name is now!
Since the merger there has been quite a good increase in work so its not as though they need less staff - they will have take on more as there is just too much now for the remaining two - and I am the one that did all the staff training so now there is nobody fully experienced enough to train any new starters!
I finish in a week or so, so will have to pop and see a solicitor and see what they think? I am just so annoyed that after 18 months of hard work helping him to build up his business, doing overtime for him - even staying a bit late most days (no pay) to make sure days work was completed that we can just be chucked out like a pair of old slippers....

bendix

the_mackem wrote: »

hope so pete. just turned 53 pete but was hoping to get out at 60ish.

You lost 70% of your pension pot? How did that happen?