Redundancy Pilon

leemack

Hi there, hope you can help.

My partner is being made redundant and we have a disagreement with the employer over the meaning of the notice clause in his contract, it reads:

Minimum one month's notice. After you have been employed for up to five continuous years, you will be entitled to receive one additional week's notice for each whole year you have worked up to a maximum of twelve weeks.

They are saying this means that he gets 1 month plus one week for every year over 5 years - which is actually less than statutory notice pay.

Whereas we are saying it means 1 month, plus 1 week for each year worked as he has been there more than 5 years.


Surely if the intention was to provide statutory notice, it would read 1 week for every year up to twelve weeks.

Also it starts out providing notice that is in excess of statutory and then after 5 years the employee is rewarded with less than statutory. This is not logical.

It doesn't state that the additional weeks are only for each year worked above 5 years, but that after working for 5 years the employee becomes entitled to an extra week for each whole year worked.

That's how I read it.


Just used this example to someone else, in how they may be misplacing the word 'additional' when they read the clause, giving it a different meaning:

'after 5 years you will be entitled to receive one additional week's notice for each whole year you have worked' to

'after five years you will be entitled to receive one week's notice for each additional whole year you have worked'.


I would be grateful for people's opinions.

Thanks

Lee

Jarndyce

My reading of the bit you have quoted would be the same as yours.

So if he has been there 6 years, he would get a month, plus 6 weeks.

It is very clumsily worded and I suppose open to interpretation, but it would be pointless for an employer to argue that they meant it to produce something less than the statutory minimum, as that would be unenforceable. It is also very confusing to mix up weeks and months like that.

The alternative interpretation your colleague has provided would also just produce the statutory minimum wouldn't it? So it would be unnecessary wordage to set it out in such a way. My head hurts.

leemack

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Yes as it stands, their interpretation suggests he would get just less than 6 weeks, which they can't do - and indeed have fudged the figures in order to comply with statutory. As you say, we're arguing for 6 weeks plus 1 month.

The company that wrote the original contract was taken over by the current company, so its not actually one of their contracts.

The company are making around 100 people redundant, many of which will have the same contract. Our interpretation of the clause could cost them, I guess, around £100,000.

SarEl

Rather than nitpicking language wouldn't it just be easier to approach it the simple way? Statutory notice is inviolable. If the employer proposes to provide less notice than this they cannot. If they don't propose this then the semantics of correct English phrasing are irrelevant.

leemack

SarEl wrote: »

Rather than nitpicking language wouldn't it just be easier to approach it the simple way? Statutory notice is inviolable. If the employer proposes to provide less notice than this they cannot. If they don't propose this then the semantics of correct English phrasing are irrelevant.

I think you miss the point. They are providing statutory. We're arguing that the contract provides for statutory plus one month, as he has worked there for more than 5 years.

Jarndyce

leemack wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Yes as it stands, their interpretation suggests he would get just less than 6 weeks, which they can't do - and indeed have fudged the figures in order to comply with statutory. As you say, we're arguing for 6 weeks plus 1 month.

The company that wrote the original contract was taken over by the current company, so its not actually one of their contracts.

The company are making around 100 people redundant, many of which will have the same contract. Our interpretation of the clause could cost them, I guess, around £100,000.

Obviously that is irrelevant. Assuming it was a TUPE transfer and unless changes were agreed subsequently, the original contract still applies.

Is there a union involved? With over 100 redundancies, unless they are scattered across several locations they may be required to consult collectively.

Jarndyce

leemack wrote: »

I think you miss the point. They are providing statutory. We're arguing that the contract provides for statutory plus one month, as he has worked there for more than 5 years.

Agreed - why settle for statutory when the contract reads as if they are entitled to more?

getmore4less

They probably were trying to make it statutory but just got it wrong.

If you insist on your interpretation they could say OK you can work it which may or may not be what you want.

If being given PILON remember to add the statutory notice to the notice of termination to work out the date for calculating service for redndancy.

Often overlooked and can sometimes give an extra year service for redundancy.

leemack

Jarndyce wrote: »

Obviously that is irrelevant. Assuming it was a TUPE transfer and unless changes were agreed subsequently, the original contract still applies.

Is there a union involved? With over 100 redundancies, unless they are scattered across several locations they may be required to consult collectively.

Yes I only mentioned it wasn't their contract because they didn't write it and have no idea of what the intention was of the clause. Though I agree that also doesn't matter - its what the clause actually says that matters.

There has been a consultation period, but discussion of the contract clauses hasn't been part of it as there are several different contracts involved for people employed at different times for different companies, and the consultation has been general, not specific and no union as far as I'm aware.

getmore4less

OK, loads of people, reps or union?

leemack

Jarndyce wrote: »

Agreed - why settle for statutory when the contract reads as if they are entitled to more?

Indeed, its a significant amount of money to us.