entitled to redundancy money?

phatus

The government is introducing a system where the least effective members of staff (bottom 10%) are put on an improvement plan. It's possible a staff member could lose their job as a result if they don't improve to the expectations of the employer. So lets say a member of staff has worked in their job for 10 years+ and they're suddenly put into the bottom 10% category and given the sack after a year of having them on an improvement plan.

Would the member of staff be entitled to any redundancy money? I've heard mixed opinions on this and not sure who is correct.

mjm3346

If they were dismissed (and the correct procedures were followed) there should not be a redundancy payment.

getmore4less

Performance related dismisal has always been around.

The bottom 100% can be dismissed if they don't measure up

whats new?

phatus

getmore4less wrote: »

Performance related dismisal has always been around.

The bottom 100% can be dismissed if they don't measure up

whats new?

I take it you don't work for the government. It's a pretty 'relaxed' place to work in general.

nomoneytoday

If you're a lessor performer than 90% of your colleagues, and don't shape up in a year, what would you expect to be given?

phatus

nomoneytoday wrote: »

If you're a lessor performer than 90% of your colleagues, and don't shape up in a year, what would you expect to be given?

I want to know if a person in this situation is entitled by law to anything as some people seem to think they are.

What someone would expect to be given isn't of interest to me. Feel free to start a new thread for your question if you like.

TadleyBaggie

It's quite simple, redundancy is payable when you loose your job because the job role no longer exists. If you loose your job because you are not capable, then that's simply being sacked.

anamenottaken

phatus wrote: »

I want to know if a person in this situation is entitled by law to anything as some people seem to think they are.

What someone would expect to be given isn't of interest to me. Feel free to start a new thread for your question if you like.

As above - redundancy is when there is a reduction (or cessation) of requirement for particular work to be done. The situation described is not that - the work is there but not being done as well as it might.

The only payment due in the dismissal arising from not doing the job properly is if the dismissal process was not carried out fairly.