Settlement agreement offered.

Takeaway_Addict

Undervalued wrote: »

Or because the contract firm don't want any more staff (particularly ones with many years of employment protection)!

Maybe but the OP does only have 4 years of protection by the sounds of it

cazziebo

Undervalued wrote: »

Yes but there is nothing in the original post to suggest that a TUPE is even being considered. In fact everything suggest that the firm are looking at some sort of enhanced redundancy protected by a settlement agreement.

This kind of situation is almost always TUPE. The incoming company would have to employ, dismiss on competency or conduct grounds, offer redundancy or pursue what could be a lengthy and resource heavy consultation process to change employment contract terms. Easier to just put one of their existing or new employees in.

I don't see any suggestion that the offer would be enhanced. It should be, although the OP has weakened their negotiating position by saying they won't work new hours and want to go. Any offer should be at least equal to redundancy, include PILON and the icing on the cake would be additional recompense acknowledging the OP might find it difficult to secure a suitable alternative job.

Undervalued

cazziebo wrote: »

I don't see any suggestion that the offer would be enhanced. It should be, although the OP has weakened their negotiating position by saying they won't work new hours and want to go. Any offer should be at least equal to redundancy, include PILON and the icing on the cake would be additional recompense acknowledging the OP might find it difficult to secure a suitable alternative job.

If it is not enhanced then there is little obvious reason (apart from over caution) to look at a settlement agreement. OK, some firms tend to go down the CA / SA route just to be on the safe side.

Outsourcing is a perfectly reasonable business decision so it is hard to see that there could be any argument that the redundancy is not genuine.

The OP makes no mention of TUPE and if they want out and are happy with statutory redundancy (maybe topped up a little for goodwill) then I would suggest they go with the flow as quickly as possible.

agrinnall

We don't know how many hours you work or what you get paid, but it sounds like it may be less than full time, and office cleaning is generally paid at the lower end of the scale. So 4 years statutory redundancy isn't going to add up to a lot, and even if it's enhanced a bit it's still not going to make your fortune, so it may not be worth making a big fuss about it if your boss is prepared to pay at least what you would get in law.

spire2003

agrinnall wrote: »

We don't know how many hours you work or what you get paid, but it sounds like it may be less than full time, and office cleaning is generally paid at the lower end of the scale. So 4 years statutory redundancy isn't going to add up to a lot, and even if it's enhanced a bit it's still not going to make your fortune, so it may not be worth making a big fuss about it if your boss is prepared to pay at least what you would get in law.

I dont get paid by the hour but get paid to do the job. £110 per week & it usually takes me only about an hour a day. I make it with 4 weeks notice i could be entitled to about £1100 if it was a redundancy. I hope to get that & some extra as i have received no holiday pay except bank holidays for the whole of the 4 years i have been there.

getmore4less

Undervalued wrote: »

Yes but there is nothing in the original post to suggest that a TUPE is even being considered. In fact everything suggest that the firm are looking at some sort of enhanced redundancy protected by a settlement agreement.

the second post by the op says they would turn down employment by the new supplier

agrinnall

Yes, £1100 would be right if you're over 40 and you get pay in lieu of notice. I wouldn't count on back holiday pay apart from the current holiday year, the usual situation with holidays is "use it or lose it", if you weren't being allowed to take holidays in previous years that should have been raised at the time. If your employer offers anything above £1100 + pay for current years holiday accrued then you should consider taking it because nobody else is going to enforce a higher payment.

spire2003

agrinnall wrote: »

Yes, £1100 would be right if you're over 40 and you get pay in lieu of notice. I wouldn't count on back holiday pay apart from the current holiday year, the usual situation with holidays is "use it or lose it", if you weren't being allowed to take holidays in previous years that should have been raised at the time. If your employer offers anything above £1100 + pay for current years holiday accrued then you should consider taking it because nobody else is going to enforce a higher payment.

It is my intention to take anything offered above the £1100. The reason i mentioned to my boss about the unpaid holidays was to focus his mind on what to offer, if thats happens. As the MD of the company i doubt he had any knowledge or actually cared about the cleaners holidays. After all why would he. I am meeting him again on Friday when he will have taken the advise he said he needed & to agree on a suitable outcome.

Pricivius

I'm struggling to see what redundancy has to do with this - this is not a redundancy situation. A redundancy must involve a reduction in the type of work being done. The OP has confirmed that actually there is an expansion and a need for more cleaners, not less. Where a role is outsourced, it is likely that TUPE would apply and OP has confirmed that the new company would employ him - this suggests he would transfer under TUPE to the new company.

OP - see what they offer you, but don't be surprised if your boss has taken advice and is aware that redundancy is not really relevant from his point of view. It may be the case that if you transferred to the new company and they have too many cleaners that you would then be at risk of redundancy at that point.