Redundancy Consultation - Lack Of Information

AndyBSG

The company I work for has put my entire department 'at risk' and we are currently undergoing the 90 day consultation period and elsewhere in the company other departments have had 'head count reductions'.

We are now 45 days into this period and have been given no more information than we were given when we were initially told, I actually have the last 10 E-mail from our so called employee rep which all say 'No update, but i'll have news tomorrow'

We have not been told the selection process, redundancy package, etc.

The situation is that the company cannot shut the whole department down immediately because of contractual obligations to clients so the suspicion is that a skeleton staff will be kept on to meet those obligations.

Now it would appear that those staying and those going immediately has already been decided as it's becoming quite visible that some of us aren't being given work at the moment while others are being given work previously done by someone else.

Does anyone know what legal obligations there are during the 90 day consultation process to deliver information in a timely manner?

getmore4less

Give your reps a kick they need to do their jobs.

They should be setting the company up for failing to engage in meaningful consultation.

They should be asking for the business reasons so they can discuss these with people and try to minimise the impacts and reduce if possible.

Why is there a need to reduce work what can be done to improve the situation

What are the alternatives to redundancies, short time working, taking holidays...

They should be asking about timescales of the redundancies.

if it is contract that are potentily going what about TUPE

Asking about support for those going like facilities to help look for jobs internaly and externaly

Asking about the packages, trying to enhance them.

They should be communicatng what they have been asking and what responces they have been getting.

AndyBSG

Looks like I need more advice on this.

We have now gone past the half way point of our consultation period and we received one update yesterday that there was a 'change to the proposal'

We have not been told what it is, though I suspect they are now going to keep a skeleton staff on to meet our contractual obligations to clients rather than get rid of all of us.

Does this mean the 90 day period must begin again if there is a change to the original proposal?

Also, our employee rep had the following to say regarding the delay(Which I have in an E-mail)

"I do not know why this is taking so long but our HR rep shares my concern and this delay is unacceptable".

Is this a basis for 'failure to consult'?

getmore4less

Consultation is there to allow for changes because of the consultation so it does not restart.

If it can be shown that the consultation is not over then it can continue.

The reps need another kick they should know why the place needs to close by now.

what is happening to the contracts. if they are stopping are they going elsewhere etc.

AndyBSG

Unfortunately we won't be TUPE'd.

They're closing the department down because they no longer want to invest in the UK market but there are two parts of the system that are used by the US.

Because the US business relies on those two modules they can't sell the system off. Basically, they're maintaining that the system itself is still key to the company... But the UK market isn't so they're taking the system to the US and shutting us down

AndyBSG

We have now received this E-mail which makes absolutely no sense to me.

Are they trying to change our redundancy package?

I have contacted you because your role is one that is at risk of redundancy and to advise you that the company proposes to use Compromise Agreements. Members of the Unite union, with roles that are similarly at risk, have already received a copy of the following note from Alan Burn, Senior Workplace Representative for Unite. An important point to note is that only those employees who will be made redundant will be asked to sign a Compromise Agreement, and the company will pay for them to take legal advice before they do so.

F&R job reductions - proposal to use Compromise Agreements

Colleagues,

As you should have been made aware at your initial individual consultation meeting; the company is consulting with the union and employee representatives over the introduction of compromise agreements linked to payment of the company’s enhanced redundancy terms. If introduced this would apply to all future redundancies and not just this exercise.

Current redundancy terms, both legacy-Reuters and standard Thomson Reuters, are considered “enhanced” because they exceed your statutory entitlements under UK law.

This change does not affect the payment amounts as currently defined in the job reduction procedures, rather it links their future payment to signing an agreement. Under the company’s proposal, to receive those enhanced payments you will be expected to sign a compromise agreement. This has the effect of preventing you from pursuing any claims against the company; so accepting payment as “full and final settlement”. This protection against employees pursuing claims after having received enhanced payment terms is the reason the company is seeking to introduce these additional arrangements. If you don’t sign you’d simply be paid the statutory legal minimum in terms of redundancy pay plus any notice due to you etc.., but would be free to pursue any claim to an Employment Tribunal (e.g. unfair dismissal or discrimination).

Up until now within F&R (and previously in Reuters) compromise agreements have not been used with routine redundancy dismissals. Our enhanced redundancy terms are an entitlement under our existing contracts of employment so there has never been a requirement to sign a further agreement to receive them. This change amounts to a change of our employment contracts, hence the consultation on this specific issue that is now taking place.

For various reasons I have indicated to the company that Unite is opposed to their introduction (and I will be communicating with all Unite members on this matter later in the week). But that does not mean, if introduced, I would automatically advise individuals not to sign them. That will depend on the circumstances in each case and specifically whether the individual is seeking to challenge their redundancy or not; in which case the first step is the internal grievance or appeal procedure. The company has made it clear the introduction of compromise agreements linked to redundancy payments is not intended to curtail an individual’s right to raise a grievance or appeal against any redundancy dismissal. However, in future signing an agreement will prevent employees from pursuing any challenge beyond the internal company processes. In addition to this “access-to-justice” issue, the union’s opposition is primarily concerned with how their introduction may impact the way in which future redundancy exercises are conducted. [It should also be noted, the use of compromise agreements (to be renamed “settlement agreements”) was recently the subject of a Government consultation (BIS Ending the employment relationship).]

The content of the such agreements is fairly standard and whilst a draft has been provided to representatives as part of the consultation, this is not for general circulation. Once the company commences (shortly before dismissal) a “without prejudice” conversation with each individual to be made redundant, that is the point at which the employee will be provided with a copy of the agreement over which they must then seek independent legal advice for it to become legally binding on all parties. That legal advice will concern the consequences of signing the agreement and the cost will be covered by the company. Unite members will be able to access advice through the union’s solicitors Thompsons following a referral by myself, Alan Burn.

Whilst their introduction is currently subject to consultation we are expecting the company to proceed with its proposal.

AndyBSG

My understanding of this is that in our 'at risk' letters we were told we would receive one months pay for each year of service, instead of the statutory minimum of one week for each year. Also, the 'enhanced' redundancy terms are written into our employment contracts... I would have thought both of these make this pretty legally binding?

Now they are saying we will only receive the one months pay if we sign this agreement. Are they legally allowed to change the redundancy package detailed in the at risk letter during the consultation period?

newbutold

I notice you don't seem to be getting much help here. There is a member on here called SarEl that is very knowledgable on employment matters.

However I believe they mainly post on another website now.

http://www.redundancyforum.co.uk/employees-ask-redundancy-questions/1960-sarel-employment-advice/

You may get more help if you post your questions on the redundancy forum above.

Good luck.

getmore4less

I agree over to the redundancy forum,


so much for your reps not knowing anything that letter says they have been involved in the CA discussions along with the union.

AndyBSG

This farce is still dragging on.

We've now received a 'revised proposal'... Which is exactly the same as the original proposal.

Our 90 days period is just 3 weeks away now and we've still not had any individual consultations or been put under formal notice of redundancy. we are still classed as 'at risk' even though the revised proposal states that we are all being made redundant.

The reason for this seems clear. We had a major project that was due to be implemented on 8th April, one week before the 90 day period is up.

This project has now been postponed by at least one month so it seems they are deliberately not serving us our official notice because of this as they do not want us exercising our right to take time off for retraining and interviews or to serve counter notice.

In short, they are deliberately keeping us hanging until this project is implemented.

I know it's a grey area but is telling us we're all being made redundant then deliberately delaying the formal notification allowed?

I thought the redundancy laws were designed to make sure that employees are informed in a timely and fair manner, not as a bargaining chip for the company to hold over our head to allow them to continue to delay indefinitely?

AndyBSG

Surprise, surprise.

almost immediately after the project we were meant to deliver was delayed by a month we get told that our 90 day consultation period is delayed by a month.

Is this allowed? I thought the consultation period was to try and save jobs and find alternatives to redundancy, not for the company to exploit to finish a delayed project?