local authority redundancy - no money!

mooster66

Hi I wonder whether anyone could advise me

I have worked for a council for 8 years (in an offshoot organisation, set up by the labour government) we are now being closed down

when we were told of this i applied for a job at another council and was successful. however, my current employer is trying to class this as a redeployment and refusing to give me redundancy money

i am moving to a job with less pay and more hours with no salary protection etc and think i should receive the redundancy to offset this, but i am told by HR that its 'unlawful' to be made redundant (paid off) by one council and start straight away at another

seems like a rip off to me..has anyone had similar experience, or can anyone please advise me on the rights and wrongs here??

thanks in advance

SevenOfNine

Call the ACAS helpline. http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1410

Will there be any break at all in your employment? Make sure you put it in writing that you do not agree with HR's view that this is 'redeployment' and, until such time as you have been able to check further, then you regard this as redundancy. Request the source of their claim so you can see what/where they are quoting from, don't know about 'unlawful' but you might trip over some weird and wonderful LA 'policy'!

mooster66

thats helpful thanks

i dont know - the new authority are taking forever to do the crb check etc and my deadline here is end september so its unlikely there will be a break in service. the attitude is i will have all the benefits of continuous service- but theres no guarentee i wont be made redundant again in a year.

mooster66

i have to log out now but will read later to see if anyone else has posted replies...thanks

nimbo

hi,

i wirk for the NHS and when we received our redundancy letters - still ongoing process we were informed that we could net have accepted another job with the NHS OR local authourity within at least 4 weeks.

it seems to be standard practice.

where ia ma have been very transparant about how they are doing things, and it is clearly ststed in the policy which staff sie and the unions helped to develop....

sorry i think you may have lucked out on this one.

Jelly_legs

HI Sorry to hear of your redundancy.

I`m also being made redundant, I don`t have another job as I`ve been very ill and need to take time out.

However, on the declaration form sent to me by my local authority to claim my redundancy payment, there is a quote taken from the Local Government Modification Order that states "you will be deemed not to have left employment on the grounds of redundancy if you receive an offer of employment with an LEA (or related body) on or before the date on which your contract of employment ends and that employment is to commence within 4 weeks of the date on which your contract of employment ends

It doesn`t sound too positive for you but are you in a union?

I was told if the LEA found me another job that I could do (I`m a teacher but have lost the use of my legs) my salary would be protected for three years unless it was a very significant drop in responsibility. I cant see how it can be considered redeployment unless your salary and any other benefits have been protected.

Jelly Legsx

SarEl

Jelly_legs wrote: »

HI Sorry to hear of your redundancy.

I`m also being made redundant, I don`t have another job as I`ve been very ill and need to take time out.

However, on the declaration form sent to me by my local authority to claim my redundancy payment, there is a quote taken from the Local Government Modification Order that states "you will be deemed not to have left employment on the grounds of redundancy if you receive an offer of employment with an LEA (or related body) on or before the date on which your contract of employment ends and that employment is to commence within 4 weeks of the date on which your contract of employment ends

It doesn`t sound too positive for you but are you in a union?

I was told if the LEA found me another job that I could do (I`m a teacher but have lost the use of my legs) my salary would be protected for three years unless it was a very significant drop in responsibility. I cant see how it can be considered redeployment unless your salary and any other benefits have been protected.

Jelly Legsx

This is the correct legal position. You have obtained other local government employment and your continuous service remains intact - but you are not entitled to redundancy on this basis. It is a standard term of local authority employment.

ceridwen

Its my understanding that there are various criteria to determine whether a job is considered to be equivalent - I thought in law it had to be at least the same pay to be considered "equivalent" and O.P. has said that its lower-paid.

Maybe he could say that as its not an equivalent job - then how could it be considered redeployment?

SarEl

ceridwen wrote: »

Its my understanding that there are various criteria to determine whether a job is considered to be equivalent - I thought in law it had to be at least the same pay to be considered "equivalent" and O.P. has said that its lower-paid.

Maybe he could say that as its not an equivalent job - then how could it be considered redeployment?

It isn't a "suitable alternative". I don't know if HR or the OP is confused here, because it isn't a redeployment (which is internal). The OP applied for a job with another local authority and got it. The application and cut in pay scale was a choice (albeit a choice made due to impending redundancy). It therefore follows the rules that apply when any LA employee moves from one authority to another - service remains intact, but that is all. No pay protection and no redeployment - just another job.

getmore4less

ceridwen wrote: »

Its my understanding that there are various criteria to determine whether a job is considered to be equivalent - I thought in law it had to be at least the same pay to be considered "equivalent" and O.P. has said that its lower-paid.

Maybe he could say that as its not an equivalent job - then how could it be considered redeployment?

The point of "equivilent" is you can't be forced to take it if it is not, but if you do it is continuation of employment on acepted new terms.

That's the trade off get continuity and work back up to a better grade job or take the money have a month(or whatever is required) break and start the clock for future emplyment benifits with a new job.


With the tendancy to reduce enhanced redundancy taking the money and delay the new job by the time required and start again is probably the option to take unless you can get redundacy protected in the new position.

ceridwen

SarEl wrote: »

It isn't a "suitable alternative". I don't know if HR or the OP is confused here, because it isn't a redeployment (which is internal). The OP applied for a job with another local authority and got it. The application and cut in pay scale was a choice (albeit a choice made due to impending redundancy). It therefore follows the rules that apply when any LA employee moves from one authority to another - service remains intact, but that is all. No pay protection and no redeployment - just another job.

Yep..gotcha. H.R. is "muddying the waters" by calling this "redeployment" - even though it isnt. The problem lies with the fact that O.P. appears (on the surface of it) to have asked for this other job "voluntarily" - rather than them instructing him to do it.

Okay-dokey..