Redundancy revoked after finding a new job?

iwantasmallholding

RATHBONE wrote: »

Hope somebody can giove me advice! I was made redundant from the council after being there 5 years. I managed to secure another job before they could secure me alternative employment and now they are saying I am not entitled to my redundancy, even though I have 3 days left off work in this job!

It has only come to light now that they are trying to offer me jobs even though I have been waiting for three months since notified!

Is this fair, I don't know what to do because I want to start my new job and be entitled to my redundancy, I feel like crying!

My wife is in the same boat, worked for the council for 14 years, was told that there was no longer funding for her post, this was 9 months ago, so we borrowed some money and she has spent the last 9 months intensively training and starting her own bussiness, she was assued she was being made redundant by the HR manager, and her line manager. Then the DAY BEFORE, her three months official notice (not recieved due to christmas post till within the three months" a Letter saying the same, we have found you "suitable alternative employment", only its not suitable, my wife works from home 4 days a week and is one day in a local council office 15mins away. the new job 37.5 hours in an office two hours from our house (each way), and new manager thats incompetant (7 members of staff under him 6 off long term sick with stress) They would not have offered this job unless they knew she was going, they are just weedling out of paying what she has been verbally promised for 6+ months. Now the 6k was going to cover 50% of the cost of her retraining. Had she not of retrained everyone would have critisised us for not preparing for the future. So now what do we do, stay in the job and have waisted 12k retraining, or stay in the "secure" job for 12 more months. The public secter sucks.

Good luck to you though.

Pete111

iwantasmallholding wrote: »

My wife is in the same boat, worked for the council for 14 years, was told that there was no longer funding for her post, this was 9 months ago, so we borrowed some money and she has spent the last 9 months intensively training and starting her own bussiness, she was assued she was being made redundant by the HR manager, and her line manager. Then the DAY BEFORE, her three months official notice (not recieved due to christmas post till within the three months" a Letter saying the same, we have found you "suitable alternative employment", only its not suitable, my wife works from home 4 days a week and is one day in a local council office 15mins away. the new job 37.5 hours in an office two hours from our house (each way), and new manager thats incompetant (7 members of staff under him 6 off long term sick with stress) They would not have offered this job unless they knew she was going, they are just weedling out of paying what she has been verbally promised for 6+ months. Now the 6k was going to cover 50% of the cost of her retraining. Had she not of retrained everyone would have critisised us for not preparing for the future. So now what do we do, stay in the job and have waisted 12k retraining, or stay in the "secure" job for 12 more months. The public secter sucks.

Good luck to you though.

What are you doing re this situation? It sounds like you have decent grounds to push back re the new roles suitability as the OP did.

iwantasmallholding

getmore4less wrote: »

No the conclusion is that if you have another job it makes all alternative unsuitable even your old job with no changes(complete wihdrawal).

Get legal advice.

I think the guidelines say they are allowed to change upto 20% of your original job description and it remains suitable. defo get legal advice, you house insurance will cover the cost, ours currently is.

Pete111

Geographic location and changes to working practices (ie hours in the office) can also be used to show unsuitability. These are clearly significantly different and worth using to challenge the ruling.

P

iwantasmallholding

Pete111 wrote: »

Geographic location and changes to working practices (ie hours in the office) can also be used to show unsuitability. These are clearly significantly different and worth using to challenge the ruling.

P

I do hope so, the council are hiding behind the fact that they had not served the 3 month formal notification of redundancy, so 9 months of telling her she was defo going, print outs with her job role say "deleted" was not enough. I will update everyone with any updates. There is always the accept the job and go off with stress for 4 months to get her redundancy money. which with a 4 hour round trip to work will be easy to prove.

getmore4less

Pete111 wrote: »

Hmmmm. I do not believe it is the case that an automatic ruling applies as regards this situation. In fact I think the advantage lies with the employer in this scenario.

However I'm keen to understand why you think this. Can you point me towards some case law? (Genuine question - I'm in HR and need to know if this the case!)

Cheers

P

I think it boils down to the fact that you(employer) can not unilaterly withdraw notice so the employeee can refuse and the rules effectify changed at point notice was given.

You are no longer in a situation to just provide a suitable alternative you are now in a situation where you have to show that refusal to accept the withdrawal of notice was unreasonable in order to withdraw the redundancy payment.

Having another job when there was none on the table at the time got the job is a very reasonable reason to refuse.

I think it boils down to that once under notice of redundancy an ET will look favourably on any situation that results in the employee not being out of work so finding a job before the employer finds you a suitable alternative or just withdraws on the hope you will still leave put you as the employee in a position(so automatic may be a bit to stong). where the employer now has to justify why they think refusing the withdrawing of the notice was not justified. It might be for example the new job is stacking shelves on min wage and the job on offer is a still a lot better the employer would win.


agree it is subjective so an ET is the likely outcome if people don't agree.

I sure it was SarEl that made the post that covered this but I can't find it.
Now I have
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=35141465&postcount=5

Legal opinion is very clear on this one. An employer may withdraw a redundancy notice right up until the last breath - in other words the minute before your contract is terminated. Redundancy is an "involuntary termination" on both sides (or at least that is how the law looks at it) - the employer does not want to make people redundant and the employee does not want to be made redundant. On this basis it is not a mutually agreed basis as, say, ordinary notice would be considered. If you still wanted to leave you could do so - but without any redundancy payment (which may colour your view of leaving ).

If you remained on notice of redundancy and then got another job during the notice period, different rules apply and you would be able to serve "counter-notice" on the employer to leave, preserving your redundancy payment (but obviously not any balance of wages for the full notice period).

So it looks like one key might be the counter notice

counter notice is still considered a dismisal and not a resignation.

strawberries1

Hi all, I'm sort of in a similar position.

I tuped to an LA in April 2010, received redundancy termination letter today. Consultation meeting was 18.11.10, consultation outcome 6.01.11. Letter says I'll be made redundant on 31.03.11, no suitable vacancies at the mo.

However, there is a role I'd applied for in the same LA and will be interviewed next week. I dont mind taking it on some conditions. 1, my current salary is maintained which is 100quid more than the high end of this one. 2, I keep my tupe condition of 1month per yr for redundancy and not one week (this is because the department where the new role is usually undergoes restructuring every year about August and with the cuts and all they will do that again this year. I dont want to take the role only to be made redundant in aug with 2wks pay instead of 2months). This role is different to my job but I'm currently working with the team as the work of my role has dried up cos of govt directives to transfer responsibillities to a quango (transfer back failed) and I dont want to simply go to work and do nothing.

The letter says it gives me 4 weeks notice of the termination of my emp btw now and 31.03.11 and my emp will terminate on 31.03.11. If I take emp in the Public sector within 4 weeks of my last day of service I'll loose the red pay.

I've written to HR thrice on this matter but no response. The lady told me earlier verbally that it wount be taken against me as I found the role myself so I applied for the role. But it seems whether i found the role myself or not as long as its a Public Sec role taken within 4weeks of termination I'll loose my RP.

I worry that if I get the role I'll be put on the 1week for a yr RP and then be made redundant later in the year or next yr and if I refuse the role when it's confirmed that I'll be on the 1wk per year RP I'll be deemed to have made myself unemployed.

Though the role I'm being interviewed for is less pay, I'm about to register for exams to transfer my qualifications to that field and it's costing a couple of thousands so my 2mth RP wld be very handy. I intend to look for a new job in about a year as I'll have completed my course then. Do LAs pay for staff to study?

I'll appreciate your help and please where can I go for free legal advice? I dont think I have home ins as I rent.
Thank you inadvance for sharing your knowledge.