Do I Have to Sign Statement that Redundancy is 'Compensation'

mrobsessed

Hi All,

I work in a large UK company that has decided to outsource most of its work to India to save costs, meaning my entire department is being shut down. I am one of over 100 people affected by this nationally.

Colleagues are being offered redundancy packages but have to sign an agreement that they are NOT being made redundant as we have declined the (unrealistic) offer of working in India, and that the payment is 'compensation'.

We've been told to run the document past a solicitor, but we have been told that if we don't sign we will just get statutory redundancy pay and miss out on the enhanced 'compensation'.

There is no offer of travel or relocation costs to India, although technically they are obliged to offer a job there at the same pay (which totally defeats the original cost-cutting plan), but this token and completely untenable offer seemingly allows them to do what they want.

Is it worthwhile fighting this at a tribunal or should I just take the cash and run?

Many thanks,
Mr O

lvm

It sounds like you're being asked to sign a compromise agreement and receive more money than you'd be entitled to under normal redundancy situation.

Exactly what would you take your employer to a tribunal for?

Linton

This is normal practice, all big companies will have this procedure. The company is offering money in excess of what they are legally obliged to do, possibly far in excess. In return they want you to sign the compromise agreement which will make it difficult for you to cause them time consuming and expensive hassle for example by claiming unfair dismissal.

What's the problem??? You are going to lose your job anyway, cooperate with your employer and you get extra cash. It wont cause you any difficulties in for example claiming benefits.

getmore4less

How much is the extra money.

if they are keeping you on the same contracts but in india how long do you have to work there to make the same money.

Likley there are a few that could relocate on temp basis till they got another job.

mrobsessed

The money being offered is fairly generous.

It just seems an absurd situation that a job in India, with no travel or accommodation expenses can be considered a reasonable offer of employment, or one that could ever be considered to be stable, considering the job and pay would legally have to be identical to my UK job and the main reason for using that location is to massively reduce the wage bill in the first place.

I was wondering if there was any merit in saying 'stuff your money' and going to tribunal in the hope of getting a better pay out by demonstrating that I am being made redundant solely to save the company money by using cheaper labour. It seems not.

Thanks for your help.

Going4TheDream

It is not nice to be losing your job but you have to put any personal views on 'perceived absurdities' aside, a good solicitor will check the document and circumstances to make sure it is all above board and go through the finer legal points such as whether they are obliged to pay relocation costs as they should be given a copy of your contract as well. (the company I worked at paid for the solicitor).

Personally I would say unless you are considering the option of going to India, under what ever terms, then signing and taking the enhanced payment (which you say is fairly generous) would be the most sensible option and focusing your energies on securing another job.

getmore4less

I think you will find that the redundancy reasons cannot be challenged the job is relocating so the job is redundant, tribunal do not look at the reasons.

The question is there a a suitable alternative and india would unreasonable even with a mobility clause so not suitable, except for the very high up people like regional head.

They are offering redundacy for those that don't want to take any of the jobs on offer(I don't think there is any legal requiremnent for them to be on UK T&C/Pay), I think as long as they don't mess up process etc they are OK.

As an alternative to the reddunadancy package they are offering enhance mutual termination packages(even the NHS do this MARS) so you can leave with more money and the company does not have to anounce redundancies.

If I was relatively mobile/independant I would consider going, the experience would be great and if the T&C are on UK pay then there will be a lot of savings.

Experience of outsourcing is one skill that not so many people have.

Dirk_Gently_2

The title "compromise agreement" shows that the document is you accepting a compensation payment in return for "compromising" your right to take legal action against the company - and that's exactly what you're doing.

As already stayed, pretty standard practice in large companies - they pay more than they need to in order to reduce their legal vulnerability.

And to answer the question - No, of course you don't *have* to sign it, it's an offer only. But if you do decide not to accept it you only get statutory payments, rather than any enhanced compensation payment.

busicat

mrobsessed wrote: »

Hi All,

Is it worthwhile fighting this at a tribunal or should I just take the cash and run?

Mr O

Sorry to hear what you're going through, but here's another vote for take the money, be glad of it and focus on making your future even more brilliant than the past.

This is after witnessing 2 examples of this "compromise agreement" process, which were arguably much dodgier ... and even then, after legal advice about the chances of winning and the low achievable compensation, the no-brainer choice was to take the money and kick bitterness to the kerb. Apart from the money, the practical potential re-employability of someone who's followed up a tribunal grievance and the personal and family stress and distraction of going through the fight were big considerations too.

And things worked out better in the end anyway in both those stories.

Hope this helps.

Judith_Chalmers

I have also been in a very similar situation and had to sign a "compromise agreement" . I contacted a local employment solicitor and asked the question, that, as the company had agreed to pay the cost (which was £400 per agreement for the solicitor) and I asked him to witness the signing of my agreement, if, I then recommended him to a colleague, who then recommended him to another colleague etc, etc etc..... Meaning that all of us who were involved in the redundancy scenario asked him to witness the signing would he then not be prepared to pay us all, for want of a better word finders fee, would he be prepared to give each of us £100 pound back for our recommendations. He called the law society to check the legalities of this and they told him, that he was breaking no code of conduct to do this. So I asked him not to mention to the company what our private agreement was and within days of the signing he had been paid and then sent us all our cheques for £100 each! I knew that either way we were screwed so i saw an opportunity to get a bit more cash off the company before we went! Good Luck
QUOTE=mrobsessed;discussion/4484201]Hi All,

I work in a large UK company that has decided to outsource most of its work to India to save costs, meaning my entire department is being shut down. I am one of over 100 people affected by this nationally.

Colleagues are being offered redundancy packages but have to sign an agreement that they are NOT being made redundant as we have declined the (unrealistic) offer of working in India, and that the payment is 'compensation'.

We've been told to run the document past a solicitor, but we have been told that if we don't sign we will just get statutory redundancy pay and miss out on the enhanced 'compensation'.

There is no offer of travel or relocation costs to India, although technically they are obliged to offer a job there at the same pay (which totally defeats the original cost-cutting plan), but this token and completely untenable offer seemingly allows them to do what they want.

Is it worthwhile fighting this at a tribunal or should I just take the cash and run?

Many thanks,
Mr O[/QUOTE]