Overpaid redundancy, accepted new job within same company.

bigfish31

Dear All,

I wonder if you can kindly give me advice on this matter as it is causing me unrest:

I was made redundant unfairly by my old department
I was put on a redundancy program.
Monies were paid out of the redundancy program to me.
However, I immediately accepted another role in the same company.
I kept the monies as I see this as severence payment from my old department for unfairly squeezing me out.
Now the HR department is claiming that I should have paid the monies back to them (this is over 1.5 years ago)
I have told them I was under the impression it was severence payment, they said they will consult legal on this matter.

Can someone kindly tell me what my legal position is on this? Do they have any rights for sueing me even though they were the ones who had paid this to me? They were the ones who unfairly tried to squeeze me out.

Thank you very much in advance!

Jarndyce

bigfish31 wrote: »

Dear All,

I wonder if you can kindly give me advice on this matter as it is causing me unrest:

I was made redundant unfairly by my old department
I was put on a redundancy program.
Monies were paid out of the redundancy program to me.
However, I immediately accepted another role in the same company.
I kept the monies as I see this as severence payment from my old department for unfairly squeezing me out.
Now the HR department is claiming that I should have paid the monies back to them (this is over 1.5 years ago)
I have told them I was under the impression it was severence payment, they said they will consult legal on this matter.

Can someone kindly tell me what my legal position is on this? Do they have any rights for sueing me even though they were the ones who had paid this to me? They were the ones who unfairly tried to squeeze me out.

Thank you very much in advance!

When you say you 'immediately' accepted a role in the same company was there a 28 day gap between the jobs? Because if not then you were not entitled to receive a redundancy payment. Whether or not you think the redundancy was unfair 18 months on is irrelevant. Your arguments about the money being a severance payment are misguided and have no basis in law.

If you were not entitled to the payment then the company are entitled to reclaim it. The best you can do is to negotiate its repayment over as long a period as you can.

smileylondongal

Jarndyce wrote: »

When you say you 'immediately' accepted a role in the same company was there a 28 day gap between the jobs? Because if not then you were not entitled to receive a redundancy payment. Whether or not you think the redundancy was unfair 18 months on is irrelevant. Your arguments about the money being a severance payment are misguided and have no basis in law.

If you were not entitled to the payment then the company are entitled to reclaim it. The best you can do is to negotiate its repayment over as long a period as you can.

I absolutely agree with this. It doesn't matter whether or not you felt you were 'squeezed' out of the department, as there is recourse for this, ie. going through a grievance procedure, leaving and taking them for unfair dismissal, etc. Simply keeping money you think is rightfully yours does not legally entitle you to it in the same way that if you were paid double your salary you couldn't keep it because you think you worked extra hard that month!

I don't mean to sound harsh however it seems that you've done something you knew could have repercussions and if you had had any thoughts at the time that you were entitled you would have confirmed it in writing with them. Now the employer is well within their rights to get the money back. Personally, to keep your 'new' job, I'd do everything I could now to pay them back.

k3lvc

Ask the company if you have continuous service from your original starting date and receive any benefits of service. If not then your key issue is the 28 days although HMRC may be interested is you've taken 'redundancy pay then returned to the same employer.

getmore4less

Where is this 28 days coming from?

Break in continuity only requires 1 week between contracts.

An employer can make any rules they like but if they failed to notify you at the time they reemploy you have clawback terms for the new role I don't see how they can impose them retrospectively.

With a gap of less than one week and claw back they would have to reinstate serice for any future redundancy.

SarEl

The 28 days comes from someone who thinks that public sector policies are law, I suspect. Because this is the normal term in the public sector. Some private sector companies have similar rules in accordance with policy - which is legally enforceable.

If the OP was retained on a continuous contract, or re-employed within such a policy, then the OP has no right to the money, it was paid in error and the employer may reclaim it within 6 years. And enforce repayment through the courts. If they felt that they were unfairly treated they had legal recourse at the time - their opinion about whether it was fair or not without a court ruling to that effect does not entitle them to retain the money.