PMQs - strange attitude towards redundancy payments - or am I a retard

chewmylegoff

Today at PMQs a labour MP stated that one of his constituents had been notified that he would be made redundant by Remploy. Said constituent went and found himself another job before date of redundancy and handed his notice in wanting to leave before the redundancy date. Was told wouldn't get redundancy payment as a result.

MP demanded an investigation. There were cries of "disgraceful" from the labour benches (I presume, I wasnt watching, I only had the sound on).

Not being funny but isn't that how redundancy payments work? If you leave to take up new employment before you get made redundant should you really expect to be given a pay off? Or am I missing something that makes this a "disgrace".

Perhaps MPs perceptions are warped by the fact that they get a golden goodbye when they get voted out or even when they choose to leave...

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

strange attitude towards redundancy payments - or am I a retard

The two aren't mutually exclusive of course;)

You are right though IMHO. If you quit you haven't been made redundant so don't get a redundancy payment!

Thrugelmir

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Was told wouldn't get redundancy payment as a result.

I'd take a job in lieu of statutory redundancy pay anyday.

The fact that was the Labour benches speak for itself. Clueless....

System

Just like people who take early retirement and then are re-employed as consultants. They lose their pension payments ?

grizzly1911

I agree with you chaps ^^

I wonder if it is the interpretation by the MP that was flawed. Maybe the employee miss timed his dates etc or was given wrong information on dates which led to the loss of redundancy payment that was expected.

Nothing wrong with taking the redundancy and moving straight into alternative employment.

mcfisco

It's reasonably normal [albeit I have a relatively small sample to base it on] to be allowed to leave for another job and still get redundancy payment if your new employer wants you to start before your final day.

Found this but not sure what the specific procedure should be

If you're under specific notice of redundancy and you have found another job, you may leave to take the new job during the notice period. However, you may lose the right to redundancy pay, if you don't follow a specific legal procedure.

For more information about the specific legal procedure you must follow in these circumstances, go to an experienced adviser, for example at a Citizens Advice Bureau. To search for details of your nearest CAB, including those that can give advice by e-mail, click on nearest CAB.

Here's some more info
http://www.xperthr.co.uk/faqs/topics/9,85/contractual-rights-on-termination.aspx?articleid=62117

The answer depends on whether or not the employer objects to the employee's premature departure. If the employee gives written notice to terminate his or her employment on a date earlier than the original termination date given by the employer, he or she will not lose the right to a statutory redundancy payment if the employer does not object to the early departure. If, however, the employer does object, it must serve written notice on the employee requiring him or her to withdraw the notice and continue in employment until the original termination date. This written notice must state that, if the employee fails to do so, the employer will contest any liability to make a statutory redundancy payment (s.142(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996). If the employee does not comply with the requirements of the employer's notice, under s.142(1) he or she is prima facie not then entitled to a statutory redundancy payment.
However, in accordance with s.142(3), the employee is able to apply to an employment tribunal, which will decide whether it would be just and equitable for the employee to receive the full statutory redundancy payment, part of the payment or no payment at all, having regard to the reasons why the employee sought to leave employment early and the reasons why the employer required him or her to continue in it. It is likely that, if the employee had to leave on a particular date to take up a new job in circumstances where the new employer was not willing to postpone the start date, the tribunal would hold that it would be just and equitable in the circumstances for the employee to receive the redundancy payment. Conversely, if the start date of the new job could have been postponed until after the original termination date specified by the employer, and the employer needed the employee to continue in employment until the original termination date to complete an assignment, the tribunal might well decide that the employee's actions in leaving early were not reasonable in the circumstances, and therefore that it would not be just and equitable for him or her to receive a redundancy payment. Ultimately, the issue is one for the tribunal to decide according to the particular facts of the case.
If the employer and employee mutually agree to substitute an earlier date as the date of termination of employment for the date originally specified by the employer, this issue does not arise and the employee will receive his or her statutory redundancy payment in full.

markharding557

Perhaps the MP felt an exception could be made for these remploy people.
Would that be such a bad thing?

lemonjelly

It would set a legal precedent though...

The interpretation in the OP is correct. However that staff member may have built up several years of employment rights, which will now be lost in new employment & will not be accrued until he has completed 2 years service.

angrypirate

markharding557 wrote: »

Perhaps the MP felt an exception could be made for these remploy people.
Would that be such a bad thing?

In the name of equality, yes it would be a bad thing.

nightsky224

I am sure no offence was intended and this is off topic but the word "retard" is offensive and not appropriate.

penrhyn

In this context the preferred word is leftard.:D