Can an employer just finish you with 2 weeks notice?

bailey59

My husband has been told this week that as there is insufficient work to go around his employer will have to lay off 3 out of his 24 staff. If he doesnt finish some people he will either have to reduce everyones hours or keep everyone on and possibly risk going bankrupt.

He has told everyone that he will give the 3 people 2 weeks notice and pay them those 2 weeks. My husband has worked there for around 5 years.

Can the employer do this or does he have to give them proper redundancy pay & notice based on how long they have been there? My husband cant find his contract.

Thanks for any advice.

Uncertain

Providing he is genuinely redundant then he is entitled to whatever period of notice his contract states (or the legal minimum whichever is longer) plus a redundancy payment based on his length of service and age.

There are also legal requirements for consultation (but these are relaxed for small firms) and rules as to how staff are to be selected for redundancy. If any of these are not followed or it is not a genuine redundancy situation then he may have a claim for unfair dismissal/

The ACAS, CAB or BusinessLink websites will give you the exact details. ACAS also provide good free telephone advice.

Technically he can only legally be given payment in lieu of notice (PILON) if his contract allows this. However under most circumstances people do not object to being paid without having to work those weeks so it is seldom an issue.

Pete111

Your husband can be made redundant but should be given redundancy pay as the previous poster has stated.

It's also worth noting that your husband has 5 weeks notice (not two) with the firm having worked five full years as you get a weeks notice for each full year worked by law. This statutory notice period supercedes any contractual notice in a contract and should be paid in leiu if the employer does not allow your husband to work it.

bailey59

Thank you.

Is there a difference between being made redundant and laying people off?

The job is still there its just that the employer cant afford to pay everyone. He said that if work picks up he will call them 1st to see if they want their jobs back.

Does this make any difference?

getmore4less

To clarify the around 5 years, when did he start.

amersall

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Understandingyourworkstatus/Temporarylayoff/DG_10026693

Uncertain

bailey59 wrote: »

Thank you.

Is there a difference between being made redundant and laying people off?

The job is still there its just that the employer cant afford to pay everyone. He said that if work picks up he will call them 1st to see if they want their jobs back.

Does this make any difference?

He can only legally be laid off without pay if there is a clause in his contract allowing this. Or he could of course choose to agree to be laid off but take advice before doing this. Otherwise this would be unlawful deduction of wages.

Strictly speaking it is a post that is made redundant, not a person. The employer would need to show that, in effect, the job no longer need doing perhaps because of a lack of work.

I strongly suggest you call ACAS for one to one advice. They can be very busy so 8.00am tomorrow morning may be easiest. Have all details to hand when you call.

getmore4less

In the context of the OP the term lay off actualy means made redundant(finish).

Since this is 3 out of 24 there should be consultation and selection to make the process fare.

It may be that through consultation enough are prepared to reduce hours or take time off to reduce or eliminate the imediate need to make people redundant.