Job at Risk of Redundancy

Lady007

KathysBoy wrote: »

You need to see an employment solicitor, not just any solicitor,

If you can afford it I would go one step further than this. There are Solicitors who speacialize in Compromise Agreements. I'll say i again. If they were getting rid of you legally or from an ET point of view "reasonably", then there would be no need to pay you more than you are due or indeed any need for a Compromise Agreement.

dickydonkin

Lady007 wrote: »

Sorry but the above is utter twaddle!:eek:
Read the posts properly. The OP stated that the Managers were at the without prejudice meeting which is what i disagreed with. This meeting is not part of Redundancy Consultation meetings. Also, usually there is a confidentiality clause within these agrements banning you fom disussing the content anyway.



Consultation periods must have a time line otherwise they would go on for ever. Why would companies delay making people redundant as they still have to coninue to pay them whilst still in employment and then pay any redundany payment on top? Consultation also, is not about the formalities either - its about ways of avoiding or minimising redundancy or alternatives to Redundancy.

Rubbish!

I reiterate the assertion from my previous post, there is no defined timescale for consultations where one person is made redundant. There are legally defined timescales where certain numbers of redundancies are to be made. These are quoted ad nauseum on these forums. Sure - the employer would relish the prospect of a swift conclusion to a redundancy process to avoid disruption and low morale, but will run the risk of an unfair dismissal claim if not carried out correctly.

Recently, my wife was made redundant along with 5 other colleagues. Again, for such a number, there was no defined timescale for consultations. There were outstanding issues relating to pensions, private health care and other matters that could not be resolved in a short period. Furthermore, we believed the dismissal was unfair. There were 4 consultation meetings over a period of three weeks and there were still outstanding issues when her redundancy was confirmed.

We took the company to tribunal and my wife received a settlement 1 week prior to the tribunal hearing.

The following is from the Businesslink website which is not 'utter twaddle', highlights what must be covered in consultations and as correctly quoted by lady007, does require ways to avoid redundancies, but other issues have to be discussed -

What information must you provide?


At the start of the consultation, you must provide written details of:

• the reasons for redundancies
• the numbers and categories of employees involved
• the numbers of employees in these categories employed at the establishment
• how you plan to select employees for redundancy
• how you will carry out redundancies
• how you will work out redundancy payments

Consultation does not have to end in agreement, but it must be properly carried out with a view to reaching agreement, including ways of avoiding the redundancies or minimising their effect.

Although some consultation periods are defined, they can take longer if necessary or indeed need not last the full time if all avenues have been exhausted.


Please enlighten me lady007 where the OP states his meetings with the employer were not consultations.

I cannot find anywhere in the OP's initial thread that states the meeting with managers was not the start of the consultation period - it certainly looks like it to me and that assertion is compounded by the fact that another meeting was requested. Also, Ebeneezer has quoted the following on another thread "The reason given by my employer is untrue and definitely not the reason they want to get rid of me"

The reality is that his redundancy, the reason for it and a breakdown of any outstanding monies have been discussed with his employer.

I suspect these meetings will also be deemed by the employer as consultations as it would seem that most of the OP's redundancy has been discussed with him at the first meeting and I believe the next meeting is also a part of the ongoing process.


The OP's managers would be an integral part of the consultation process - confidentiality agreement or not!

Incidentally, some employers apparently do attempt to implement a confidentiality clause in consultation meetings although I have never experienced this, but whether you agree with it or not - it happens.

Lady007, the reason reputable employers will prolong consultations and ensure everything is above board is to avoid unfair dismissal claims resulting in negative publicity, expensive legal fees and compensation awards which are potentially more costly than a protracted consultation period.

Lady007

dpassmore wrote: »

Rubbish!

I reiterate the assertion from my previous post, there is no defined timescale for consultations where one person is made redundant.

Yes I agree -legally there is no definitive period for a single employee. From an organisationally point of view they will be a timetable and an implementation date which needs to be met.

There are legally defined timescales where certain numbers of redundancies are to be made. These are quoted ad nauseum on these forums. Sure - the employer would relish the prospect of a swift conclusion to a redundancy process to avoid disruption and low morale, but will run the risk of an unfair dismissal claim if not carried out correctly.



Recently, my wife was made redundant along with 5 other colleagues. Again, for such a number, there was no defined timescale for consultations. There were outstanding issues relating to pensions, private health care and other matters that could not be resolved in a short period. Furthermore, we believed the dismissal was unfair. There were 4 consultation meetings over a period of three weeks and there were still outstanding issues when her redundancy was confirmed.

We took the company to tribunal and my wife received a settlement 1 week prior to the tribunal hearing.

[COLOR="blue"]I'm pleased to hear that - but I'm sure you are unaware as to why they settled before the ET. I would be interested to know if it was a commercial setltlement.[/COLOR]

The following is from the Businesslink website which is not 'utter twaddle', highlights what must be covered in consultations and as correctly quoted by lady007, does require ways to avoid redundancies, but other issues have to be discussed -

What information must you provide?



At the start of the consultation, you must provide written details of:

• the reasons for redundancies
• the numbers and categories of employees involved
• the numbers of employees in these categories employed at the establishment
• how you plan to select employees for redundancy
• how you will carry out redundancies
• how you will work out redundancy payments

Consultation does not have to end in agreement, but it must be properly carried out with a view to reaching agreement, including ways of avoiding the redundancies or minimising their effect.

Although some consultation periods are defined, they can take longer if necessary or indeed need not last the full time if all avenues have been exhausted.


Please enlighten me lady007 where the OP states his meetings with the employer were not consultations.

I accept that he does not. This would lead me to advise him that he should separate the two meetings. I would personally want to know if I am attending a Redundancy consultation or a meeting to discuss and agree me leaving the organisation with mutual consent. Big difference!
I cannot find anywhere in the OP's initial thread that states the meeting with managers was not the start of the consultation period - it certainly looks like it to me and that assertion is compounded by the fact that another meeting was requested. Also, Ebeneezer has quoted the following on another thread "The reason given by my employer is untrue and definitely not the reason they want to get rid of me"

The reality is that his redundancy, the reason for it and a breakdown of any outstanding monies have been discussed with his employer.

I suspect these meetings will also be deemed by the employer as consultations as it would seem that most of the OP's redundancy has been discussed with him at the first meeting and I believe the next meeting is also a part of the ongoing process.


The OP's managers would be an integral part of the consultation process - confidentiality agreement or not!

I still beg to differ on this point. Regardless of the type of meeting be it Redundancy or any other form of termination meeting, having two Managers present is heavy handed, intimidating and not the best use of Resources. IF it was a Manager and a rep from HR present I would understand.

Incidentally, some employers apparently do attempt to implement a confidentiality clause in consultation meetings although I have never experienced this, but whether you agree with it or not - it happens.

Lady007, the reason reputable employers will prolong consultations and ensure everything is above board is to avoid unfair dismissal claims resulting in negative publicity, expensive legal fees and compensation awards which are potentially more costly than a protracted consultation period.

I would argue that there isn't a need to prolong the process as all involved are typically stressed out by it. I think that we would both agree that competent Mgrs and competent HR staff (if available) are key in such a complicated and life changing process.

dickydonkin

The OP's managers would be an integral part of the consultation process - confidentiality agreement or not!

I still beg to differ on this point. Regardless of the type of meeting be it Redundancy or any other form of termination meeting, having two Managers present is heavy handed, intimidating and not the best use of Resources. IF it was a Manager and a rep from HR present I would understand.

Look - let me put this scenario to you regarding the managers attendance.

Supposing the OP had a rival that would neccessitate the requirement of a selection matrix to determine who would retain their job and who would be dismissed.

It would be essential that the people that score the matrix are familiar with the affected personnel and their standard of work to determine the scoring on subjective issues. Usually, an HR member of staff will score the objective criteria such as time & attendance, disciplinary records etc.etc which should be documented on HR records.

It is widely accepted in the interest of fairness that two people should score the matrix (where reasonably practicable) - these would usually be the affected persons line manager/team leader/dept.manager or person they report to.

It would be in the interest of all involved for the people who conducted the scoring to attend any meeting/consultation related to the redundancy as questions would inevitably be asked about how scores in the selection matrix was determined.

I would suggest that is not being heavy handed but quite sensible as all of the people at the meeting should be able to answer the likely questions from the affected people relating to the situation. You have assumed that no member of HR was in attendance. The OP has not indicated if this was the case.

Furthermore, in the OP's initial posting, he indicated he 'reports to the two managers' therefore it would make sense to me that they should be in attendance - although I concede that someone from HR should have (or may have) been in attendance.

I accept that this situation is a little different, but it certainly does not seem sinister - particularly if an HR staff member was in attendance.

It is not wise for any of us to advise anyone on their particular redundancy situation on this forum - I would always urge that affected people seek professional help, however, I am offering my twopenneth worth based on my experiences being involved with far too many redundancies of former colleagues and family.

With this situation however, I am wondering if all of the facts have been submitted.

Lady007 we can agree to disagree on some of the issues and our interpretations on some of the issues here tend to differ.

What is most important regardless of our differences of opinion is that the OP resolves the situation to his satisfaction and is allowed to move on and hopefully get on with his life working for a new company.

ebeneezer_2

I think I need to clarify. At the first meeting - which was subsequently described as a without prejudice discussion only one line manager and hr manager were present. The other line manager was not present and was not aware of the plans to make the post redundant until the Friday prior to this meeting. It is this manager who is supportive and shocked that I am at risk.
Thank you all for the posts, a lot of information to digest and I will take it in combination with a suitable employment solicitor