Shouldnt years of work be rounded UP to next whole year?

coffee_king

Hi there
I'm helping sort some redundancy issues for my girlfriend here.
She has worked for a company for 9 years. I was told in a meeting that the CBA organised where an "expert" was bought in from a company called "Bradical" (an employment clinic who give free legal advice on employment matters) that this should be rounded up to 10 years.
Is this right or wrong?

She had her induction with the company on 28th August 2003.

In a recent meeting they stated she had 9 years for redundancy and also

"Notice Pay (Taxable): Our notice period for management positions is 2 months however, legally after 8 complete years of service, one week is added per year of service. Therefore, calculation for this element will be based on 9 weeks"

So I'm also wondering if they are trying to make sure this doesn't automatically go into the 10 year period as the notice period brings it very near the 10 years and they state they require an answer by tomorrow morning.

Any help?

Thanks

~Beanie~

No they are not rounded up, only full years count. This is from Direct.Gov:

3 How many years have you worked for your employer?

Only count full years of service. For example, 3 years and 9 months count as 3 years.

coffee_king

OK thanks, I was obviously told some duff information then.
But what about where I've said the below, I'm assuming that not needing to work my notice period but still being paid for it means I'm still technically employed by them and if this period goes into the 10 years then they will need to pay me for 10 years of service?

---

So I'm also wondering if they are trying to make sure this doesn't automatically go into the 10 year period as the notice period brings it very near the 10 years and they state they require an answer by tomorrow morning.

p00hsticks

coffee_king wrote: »

OK thanks, I was obviously told some duff information then.
But what about where I've said the below, I'm assuming that not needing to work my notice period but still being paid for it means I'm still technically employed by them and if this period goes into the 10 years then they will need to pay me for 10 years of service?

---

So I'm also wondering if they are trying to make sure this doesn't automatically go into the 10 year period as the notice period brings it very near the 10 years and they state they require an answer by tomorrow morning.

They're right in saying that if you (or is it your girlfriend ?) have worked there for nine years then the minimum statutory notice period (of one week per year) is (at nine weeks) longer than the contractual period (of two months) and so takes precedence.

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4096

But I believe in the case of redundancy they can give Payment in Lieu of Notice (PILON) - you need to establish when your leaving date actually is.

LittleVoice

1 You mention "induction". Was 28 August 2003 the actual first day of employment as recorded in her/your written particulars of employment. I'll assume it was but say if that's wrong.

2 As of today, she/you are entitled to 9 weeks' notice. If notice is given tomorrow, 19 June, that notice would expire on 21 August.

3 Being paid but not required to work may be (1) because of being on "gardening leave" when one is still employed or (2) receiving pay in lieu of notice (PILON) when one is not actually employed but have been compensated for not receiving proper notice.

4 However, for statutory redundancy purposes, the statutory notice period is counted in full for calculation of redundancy pay. If they are paying anything more than statutory, they can make up their own rules for the balance above statutory.

coffee_king

Hi there
The Pilon which I assume they are calling "Notice Pay" she does not need to work, but still gets paid for and is worked out as per the below. This will all start on the day she states she will have to take redundancy.

"Notice Pay (Taxable): our notice period for management positions is 2 months however, legally after 8 complete years of service, one week is added per year of service. Therefore, calculation for this element will be based on 9 weeks"

So am I right in thinking if she can stretch this out to 9 weeks before she will have worked there a whole 10 years then she will be paid 10 years redundancy, but not 10 years notice period?

coffee_king

LittleVoice wrote: »

1 You mention "induction". Was 28 August 2003 the actual first day of employment as recorded in her/your written particulars of employment. I'll assume it was but say if that's wrong.

2 As of today, she/you are entitled to 9 weeks' notice. If notice is given tomorrow, 19 June, that notice would expire on 21 August.

3 Being paid but not required to work may be (1) because of being on "gardening leave" when one is still employed or (2) receiving pay in lieu of notice (PILON) when one is not actually employed but have been compensated for not receiving proper notice.

4 However, for statutory redundancy purposes, the statutory notice period is counted in full for calculation of redundancy pay. If they are paying anything more than statutory, they can make up their own rules for the balance above statutory.

Hi there
1. I have an email from the company stating my partners start date was 25th August 2003. (not 28th, even though my partner states its this)
2. OK
3. I believe this is PILON
4. They are paying slightly more than Statutory Redundancy pay.

She had an email from them on Friday 14th June 2013 stating that they looked forward to hearing her final decision on Monday 17th June 2013 (As to if she takes this voluntary redundancy or takes the only other job being offered her that is completely unsuitable) after taking the weekend to think it over.

On Friday 14th June 2013 she responded to their email asking further questions as things were still unclear (Ex Gratia payment, a missing rise in inflation was still not sorted in her wages dating back to Jan 2013 etc).

She was not responded to by email until today (Tuesday 17th June 2013) where they attempted to clear things up. Of which they say they want her decision by tomorrow (Wednesday 19th June 2013) morning. But there are still further outstanding issues, so she is going to have to email them back AGAIN today.

Do you think:-
a) This is an unreasonable amount of time to make such a decision as this?
b) They are trying to force an answer out of her before (Taking into consideration paid, but none working notice period) before said notice period goes into 9 weeks and thus she will have worked for the company for 10 years?

Thanks

LittleVoice

coffee_king wrote: »

Hi there
1. I have an email from the company stating my partners start date was 25th August 2003. (not 28th, even though my partner states its this)
2. OK
3. I believe this is PILON
4. They are paying slightly more than Statutory Redundancy pay.

She had an email from them on Friday 14th June 2013 stating that they looked forward to hearing her final decision on Monday 17th June 2013 (As to if she takes this voluntary redundancy or takes the only other job being offered her that is completely unsuitable) after taking the weekend to think it over.

On Friday 14th June 2013 she responded to their email asking further questions as things were still unclear (Ex Gratia payment, a missing rise in inflation was still not sorted in her wages dating back to Jan 2013 etc).

She was not responded to by email until today (Tuesday 17th June 2013) where they attempted to clear things up. Of which they say they want her decision by tomorrow (Wednesday 19th June 2013) morning. But there are still further outstanding issues, so she is going to have to email them back AGAIN today.

Do you think:-
a) This is an unreasonable amount of time to make such a decision as this?
b) They are trying to force an answer out of her before (Taking into consideration paid, but none working notice period) before said notice period goes into 9 weeks and thus she will have worked for the company for 10 years?

Thanks

What I (a random, unknown, person on MSE) thinks:

(a) If she's already decided that the alternative job is completely unsuitable - and that an ET would agree that it was - then that's half the decision made already. The decision is then whether to accept voluntary redundancy and, depending on the outstanding questions, a short period of time may not be unreasonable. If the questions are sensible and not yet answered or have complicated implications, then I would have expected a little longer to decide. However it is for a "voluntary" scheme where the employer can make the rules.

(b) Of course they are trying to get her employment to be terminated before the notice period would take her to ten years' worth of statutory redundancy pay. If they are paying "slightly more than statutory redundancy pay, is that extra more than £450 (the maximum value of the extra week for statutory scheme)?

It seems to me that, depending on how many people are likely to be made redundant at the same time and when the clock started on consultation, if she doesn't take the "voluntary" route, they may or may not be able to get notice in quickly enough to save an extra year's statutory pay. But that could mean that only the statutory payment is made, not any enhanced payment.

makeyourdaddyproud

Can you not buy time by asking for the family solicitor to be consulted? This might buy you some crucial time.

It's employer actions like these that make sick. And all to save a nominal sum. :-(

Takeaway_Addict

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

Can you not buy time by asking for the family solicitor to be consulted? This might buy you some crucial time.

It's employer actions like these that make sick. And all to save a nominal sum. :-(

Employers actions like what exactly? You do not know the reasons behind the redundancy and they could be perfectly legitimate

getmore4less

Is the VR package better than the alternative?

IMO it is upto the company to decide when they want to give notice not you.

just keep asking questions or for more money till they realise you are just dragging it out to get 10 year for the VR package.