Unfair redundancy terms

parcival

A friend has been told that he is being considered for redundancy. I used to work for the same company and this means that he almost certainly will be made redundant.

He says that the companies redundancy terms are the statutory minimum plus notice period (he has 23 years service) OR he can have a weeks pay for every year of service plus notice period if he signs a document agreeing not to take any form of legal action / tribunal.

His contract of employment prevents him from leaving (voluntarily) and going to work for a client of the company within 6 months of leaving.

My question is: If he takes the more advantageous redundancy terms can the company prevent him from immediately going to work for one of it's clients. I think the company wants to include this restraint clause in the document that is the key to getting the better redundancy deal.

McKneff

Statutory minimum redundancy is a weeks pay for every year you have worked for a company up to a maximum of 20.
He is entitled to 1 weeks redundancy pay up to the age of 41 and then 1 and a half weeks pay from age 41 upwards.

He is also entitled to a weeks notice for each year and i think that is a maximum of 12.

Also he is entitled to any accrued holiday pay.

Where are you seeing the more advantageous package, as i fail to see it.

And if they are making him redundant i would think that they couldnt stop him working for a competition.

He needs to look on the ACAS site at least before signing anything.

parcival

Should have mentioned that employee is on salary of about 50k therefore statutory redundancy is only £380 per week.

Ewarwoowar2

parcival wrote: »

A friend has been told that he is being considered for redundancy. I used to work for the same company and this means that he almost certainly will be made redundant.

He says that the companies redundancy terms are the statutory minimum plus notice period (he has 23 years service) OR he can have a weeks pay for every year of service plus notice period if he signs a document agreeing not to take any form of legal action / tribunal.

His contract of employment prevents him from leaving (voluntarily) and going to work for a client of the company within 6 months of leaving.

My question is: If he takes the more advantageous redundancy terms can the company prevent him from immediately going to work for one of it's clients. I think the company wants to include this restraint clause in the document that is the key to getting the better redundancy deal.

Yes they can. They can insert the restrictive covenants into the compromise agreement. However, if the restrictive covenants are already in his contract of employment, what difference will it make. He will still be bound by the terms of his contract after leaving the company.

McKneff

parcival wrote: »

Should have mentioned that employee is on salary of about 50k therefore statutory redundancy is only £380 per week.

ah, right, at 50k a year i see where the enhanced bit comes from now then.

Wow, what a dilemma. He'll have to do his sums then.
Is there any reason why he would take them to a tribunal then.

Freddie_Snowbits

Check here

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

RobertoMoir

parcival wrote: »

Should have mentioned that employee is on salary of about 50k therefore statutory redundancy is only £380 per week.

As McKneff says, time to do some sums then.

So... if they can't get work in their specialist sector then can they get (reasonable) work in another? If they can't then can the redundancy payment fund 6 months off work / doing minor work? Is the career sector one in which being out of circulation for 6 months will cause a major problem getting back into the sector afterwards?

the

If it was me , once made redundant i would go and work for whoever i wish, regardless of the restrictive covenant, after all it is the company dismissing the employee.
Now is it feasible that the present company will find out whom your future employer is and if so will they act against you.My thoughts are unless the work is of a sensitive nature , they may make threats to litigate but it is unlikely.

After all a job is just that a job

Debt_Free_Chick

It's often possible to negotiate removal of restrictive covenants out of compromise agreements. They're pretty pointless anyway and not legally watertight.

I'd aim to negotiate a CA without any restrictive covenants. Either do this yourself or leave it to your solicitor.

Ewarwoowar2

the wrote: »

If it was me , once made redundant i would go and work for whoever i wish, regardless of the restrictive covenant, after all it is the company dismissing the employee.
Now is it feasible that the present company will find out whom your future employer is and if so will they act against you.My thoughts are unless the work is of a sensitive nature , they may make threats to litigate but it is unlikely.

After all a job is just that a job

That's a dangerous game to play.

I'm currently representing a salesman whose previous employer is suing him for breach of restrictive covenants. It's likely to cost him about £15K.

LondonDiva

Would a restrictive covenant stand up to legal scrutiny (in terms of 'fairness') in a redundancy situation?

IIRC, redundancy means they have no work / use for him and then to deny him the right to find work in a similar position or organisation should count as an unfair t&c?

Need to go back to check!