Urgent question...hearing next week re redundancy

skaatiii

OK - another question .... If the employer holds a meeting by telephone to unknown numbers of staff on 31.08.2011 advising of potential redundancies due to business unit closure i.e. one entire area of the company closing (BUT some departmental posts are merging with another business unit) and announcing the start of a 30 day consultation period.... and I wasnt in attendance so was not notified of my post being at risk until 18.09.2011 .... and I have a HR1 dated 13.09.2011 stating 90 day consultation starting 14.09.2011 due to business place closure at the place I work (and i cant get the other party to supply any HR1) .... is it safe to assume that because I wasnt notified until after the HR1 stating 90 day consultation was actioned - it should apply to me or assume that a previous HR1 was issued with the 30 days being valid?

In short how do i verify what HR1 I am covered by? and where do i stand legally if the HR1 for 90 days had been triggered before I was informed?

SarEl

Quite apart from the fact that even after reading this three times, I cannot make head nor tail of it (how is there both a 30 day and a 90 day HR1; how did you manage to not know about redundancies for 18 days after consultations started; etc), it is never safe to assume anything... Have you asked the employer the question?

skaatiii

Im not sure how else to explain it... My colleagues in my department were told at a meeting on the last day of month 1 that there were to be redundancies as the entire business section was closing and they were being given 30 days consultation period

Although the business section was closing some depts were merging with another business section and mine was one of these - lots of other departments were in on the call too. I didnt receive an invite despite one being sent - I queried whether I was involved after and was told those affected would receive letters - others received letters but i didnt.

I was asked to attend a meeting on 18th of the following month which was to announce selection pools (didnt know this before i attended) and told i was at risk, I was upset as my post was not directly appointed despite others being so.

Three days later I was pulled out of that selection pool and placed in one with a colleague who held the same post and who had also not been notified of the first meeting due to an admin oversight. The Company acknowledge all through the consult process that I was not informed until the 18th of the month following the first announcement but maintained that I was only entitled to 30 days consult period.

Later a HR1 was placed on the staff notice board and I took a copy which I thought i had lost it until recently. Ive found my copy and it says that over 100 ppl at the place that i worked from were at risk because of office closure but this was dated 13 days after the initial meeting/announcement and stated 90 day consult.

I have repeatedly asked the Company and their lawyer for copies of a HR1 as I knew it existed (prior to finding my photocopy) They have always said either there wasnt one or I wasnt entitled to see one.

Where do i stand - if they did a seperate HR1 for the 30 days but I wasnt told until after the one for 90 days, which would I be included on?

SarEl

If the company genuinely did not expect to be making that many redundancies within a short period, then it is certainly arguablle that the first notice, of 30 days, was applicable at that time and to those people, and that it was only when circumstances changed that the people then affected got 90 days. As a collective consultation in either case, the applicable date would normally be when the company announced consultation - the process doesn't get stopped or halted because a letter to one person goes missing, and nor is it normal to get a different date for that one person as a result.

But the details are sketchy and this isn't the easiest of areas to comment on without detail - a lawyers opinion would be better than a website.

skaatiii

As i understand from above - this means whenever the Company announced posts are 'at risk' that starts the consultation process. The 90 day HR1 states the employees are potentially redundant due to the business site closure - yet this closure was announced 4 months prior to the HR1 being submitted. All staff in my department who were told they had 30 days consultation because of the business unit closure/merger were employed at the premises that closed cited as the reason for the 90 day consultation period.

Does this mean that the staff given 30 days consultation should have had 90 days?

SarEl

skaatiii wrote: »

As i understand from above - this means whenever the Company announced posts are 'at risk' that starts the consultation process. The 90 day HR1 states the employees are potentially redundant due to the business site closure - yet this closure was announced 4 months prior to the HR1 being submitted. All staff in my department who were told they had 30 days consultation because of the business unit closure/merger were employed at the premises that closed cited as the reason for the 90 day consultation period.

Does this mean that the staff given 30 days consultation should have had 90 days?

I am sorry - I am still struggling to understand what you are saying. I literally do not understand the sentence "All staff in my department who were told they had 30 days consultation because of the business unit closure/merger were employed at the premises that closed cited as the reason for the 90 day consultation period." I cannot answer a question when I do not understand what you are saying, and when the information is sketchy and unclear. I do not know what the employer did, why they did it this way, or what explanation they have offered for it.

getmore4less

I am not sure whta it is you actualy want to achieve.

If all this was happening around end of Sept into OCt then 90 days consultation are nearly up or up any way.

Not that it matter much they could just close the place an put people on garden leave anyway.


Notice of closure is probably enough to indicate that consultation has started.

Are you trying to say that people have been terminated/redundant before the closure and 90 days of some date we are not realy clear on.


perhaps actualy spell out what is is that you think is wrong with an example time line of dates and events.

skaatiii

Ok im obviously not explaining properly... I am trying to establish whether a. I was due to be provided with 90 days consultation not 30 days b. whether my colleagues were entitled to 90 days c. whether I am covered by the 90 day HR1

Facts:

My company had a rolling redundancy programme (although this has never been acknowledged) The last redundancy made from my establishment was 1 August - 3 months before the employer told staff that there would be redundancies because the business sector was closing or merging into another sector..

Everyone in this meeting on 31 October was told they would have 30 days consultation. They all left mid November (13th) 6 weeks after the announcement

My department was within that sector that was to close but was one to be merged

There were many different departments told at this announcement - I have been told that up to 25 of these announcement meetings were held, at the same time on the same day across the business

The announcement said there were no more than 99 people affected at any one place. It also said 30 days consultation period was applicable to everyone at the meeting - so 30 days from 31 October
On 18 November the company held a meeting for my department in two groups to make announcements about selection pools. Again they said there would be 30 days consultation but from this date (18 November)

This meeting was the first time I had been told my position was at risk - i hadnt been told prior to this

On 13th Novenmber (5 days before I was told I was at risk) the company submitted a HR1 to goevernment saying over 100 people were at risk due to the closure of my establishment. Again I didnt know about this until later

The company refused to discuss a HR1 during the consultations process with anyone from my department and always said legalities had been adhered to, no numbers were discussed other than those in your immediate selection pool i.e. anywhere from 3-20 people even though we were all based at the same establishment.

The HR1 said 90 days consultation would be provided from 13th November

My question is = Would I have been included on the HR1 and therefore should have had 90 days consultation or would 30 days apply because they told me so and have failed to produce any other HR1?

getmore4less

put the actual months on the dates (you can edit the post)

skaatiii

Done! I have put the dates in now Hope it reads better and makes more sense

SarEl

I have already told you - the the employer genuinely did not expect more than 99 redundancies then the 30 days notice for you was correct and the fact that the situation chnaged later does not mean that you get more comsultation period. A later HR1 is not retrospective. You were in theearlier group that had 30 days notice. And you have still not explained why all your colleagues were at risk and knew it, and you didn't.