Redundancy Pilon

leemack

getmore4less wrote: »

OK, loads of people, reps or union?

Just employee reps for general consultation, no unions. If we want to challenge we'll either need to get legal advice or I need to be sure enough of my argument to pursue it myself. I am a legal aviser but in the area of benefits not employment - so although I know a little, I'm looking for confirmation really that I'm not mad in reading the clause this way and that we have a case.

leemack

getmore4less wrote: »

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

I wish, but he still misses the extra year by 6 weeks, even with the extra month.

SarEl

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.

I see your argument, and I can see your interpretation - but I can't agree that that is what it says. But in the end then, it will be up to a tribunal, won't it, if the employer says that that isn't what it says? Our opinion on what it means won't change anything, theirs is the only one that may.

mustmakealist

Just a thought, but perhaps the intention was that anyone with less than five years service would get at least one months pay. This might be more than statutory. For those with longer service perhaps statutory was intended.