Help

steve4_2

can anyone help. I had a letter in September telling me my job was redundant in December. we were told if we found jobs we could leave and still get our pay. I found a job and gave them a months notice. this week the firm went bust. I was told I could no longer clam for the redundancy because I had left the company and the company is now in liqudation. is this true

Debt_Free_Chick

Yes, I'm sorry, but you've shot yourself in the foot by resigning. However, as the company is bust, you would only have got statutory redundancy pay - better than nothing, I guess, but it might not have been as much as you might think.

Best to move on - at least you have a new job!

steve4_2

Thanks for that yes i'm lucky i have a job not like some of them. someone did say i could try the goverment redundancy pay out and send copies of the letters we had telling us we are redundant

dickydonkin

steve4 wrote: »

can anyone help. I had a letter in September telling me my job was redundant in December. we were told if we found jobs we could leave and still get our pay. I found a job and gave them a months notice. this week the firm went bust. I was told I could no longer clam for the redundancy because I had left the company and the company is now in liqudation. is this true

Was the letter you received in September a formal notice of redundancy?

If that is the case, if you are working your notice you can serve 'counter notice' provided you have good reason to do so. A job offer would certainly be a valid reason. Of course the employer could reject a counter notice but an employment tribunal would almost certainly find in favour of the claimant.

For some companies, someone leaving before the 3 months notice has been completed would benefit by only paying the employee up until the date he/she actually left, however, that does not preclude the employer from paying statutory redundancy payments.
See below.

Once an employee has been issued with written notice of redundancy it is expected that they will be searching for alternative employment. It is also recognised that any prospective employer might not be willing or able to wait for them to commence employment until the termination of their notice.

So, under S. 136(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 the employee can give what is called "counter notice", that they wish to terminate their employment prior to the date set by their employer, and they will still be able to claim their redundancy payment (although not for the unexpired portion of their notice). The counter notice must be given ’in writing’ within ’the obligatory period’. The obligatory period is the statutory notice period for redundancy - this only becomes an issue where employees are given longer than the statutory notice period (one week for each year of service up to a maximum of twelve), in which case the obligatory period is counted backwards from the termination date.
Because of the urgency for the employee of finding alternative work counter notice does not need to be for the full usual notice and can legitimately be as little as one day, although employees should endeavour to give as much notice as possible.
If the employer accepts the counter notice there is no problem. However, the employer still has the right to insist that the full notice is worked. If they do this and the employee chooses to leave prior to their termination date they can be deemed to have resigned and are not automatically entitled to a redundancy payment but must apply to an employment tribunal.


The tribunal must consider both of the following:

1. The reasons for the employee wishing to leave early;
2. The reasons for the employer wishing to retain the employee;

and assess whether it is just and equitable that the employee receive the appropriate payment.
It is not possible to say in advance that every case will go one way or another but as a general rule the more specialised and high powered a job is the less likely it is that the employer’s actions in refusing to accept the counter notice will be held to be reasonable. Conversely, for routine, lower graded work the tribunal is likely to rule in favour of the employee.


I am unsure how your months notice would affect any claim so I would seek some advice if you wish to claim. If you gave 1 months notice due to the fact you were informed by your company that you HAD to work the full three months, I would suggest you were misled and I think you would have a valid claim.

steve4_2

Thank you very much for that/ yes the letter dated 14th of september is formal notice of termination of employment i had been with the compamy 14 years. i did ask how much notice i had to give they told me one month. so thanks again ofr that info. the letter i had given me even had how much redundancy i should get in december

dickydonkin

steve4 wrote: »

Thank you very much for that/ yes the letter dated 14th of september is formal notice of termination of employment i had been with the compamy 14 years. i did ask how much notice i had to give they told me one month. so thanks again ofr that info. the letter i had given me even had how much redundancy i should get in december

I would definately pursue this.

You have definately been misinformed by your former employer (maybe deliberately?) You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

steve4_2

Again Thank you very much for you help