Redundancy information.

PolaBear

Hey people.

Am in a situation regarding my company and there redundancy situation and wanted to know if you had more information, as what the meetings I am having seem to be saying to me now is a mixture of "I can't comment" and standard answers.

Basically the company I work at has decided to cut hours, after cutting hundreds of hours only 2 years ago they are back to cut some more. The only criteria that seems to put you into risk of being made redundant is absences, and I fall into this having been injured earlier this year. From the groupings of people and talks iv had the situation looks as if it will affect me.

What has changed since the last round of redundancies is the way the company have now chosen to pay people. Instead of previously, where your money was paid to you after you had agreed/volunteered to take it, now the system is that you will serve a notice period of a week for every year you have worked there, which could turn into months of time. The money paid to you will then come out of the wages you earn from this, and then a bit more when you do leave. If you take another job or decide to leave during this time, you won't get anything.

Although I know it can be done this way, from what I have read its a very harsh way to go about it, not only is it lowering the figure as you are basically working most of the money off, it's also stopping you taking the money and getting something else lined up, giving you something to use/fall back on. As I said, previously with a larger number that were made a while back, this didn't happen and people were paid straight up (think its called in lieu). Some things I have read say that a good company will allow negotiations for you to be paid this way, but everything that is coming from HR/head office says this is the policy, nobody knows much else.

Another thing that this is doing is putting a lot of people who would take voluntary redundancies from taking it because of this structure, so the idea that others may leave and help peoples situations isn't there, the company would actually get more hours than they need and could become more flexible (which they want) if they paid up front as more want to take it. But people seeing that they would have to split there figure and work notice stops them if they don't have to, as really all you are getting is a wage for those weeks, instead of putting the money towards something and move forwards.

Any thoughts or experiences with this? I'm aware and sure they can do all of this, but any more information is all good.

patman99

If I read your post correctly, are we lead to believe that the company is attempting to reduce your actual redundancy pay owed for time served by making you work-out a notice period ?.

If so, I do not think that that is legal. They can make you work-out a notice period based on 1 week per year of service (up to 12 weeks I seem to remember), as this then removes the need to pay PILON, but you should still get redundancy pay at 1 week per years service (or 1.5 weeks for years worked beyond the age of 40), plus any holiday pay for holidays not taken.

Btw, was your accident one that happened at work ?.If so, engage a no-win, no-fee firm and go after them for a bit of compo.

PolaBear

Thanks for your reply.

The redundancy package is split in two, one part you will receive at the end of working there (think that's statutory), the second is what will be worked off over the weeks you are working notice. Previously the two parts were paid without notice after the consultation period.

As for the injury it was out of work it was signed off by the doctor for a fortnight, they are only counting the past 12 months absence, before this I had no time off at all in 6 years!

Another_not_new_user

I am also not really clear about what this "second part" is. But the position is simple. An employer is required to pay you statutory redundancy pay at, or shortly after, the termination of your employment. Anything better than that is subject to the employers decision. As far as I can see the "seconf part" was pay in lieu of notice. They employer is not required to pay you in lieu of notice, so you aren't being "paid it out of your wages" - it is your wages!

patman99

I'll assume for now that the 2 parts PolaBear reffers to are PILON (paid instead of working notice) and the redundancy part (paid based on time worked at company).

If this is correct, then they can reduce PILON by giving employees notice and making them work it. This is done in the hope that the employee will find another job and leave prior to the end of the notice period. Thus saving the firm having to pay out any money.

The savvy amongst us would, of course, arrange any start date for new employment to be 1 week after the final week of the notice period. Thus, you get your redundancy followed by a week off then a new job.

getmore4less

patman99 wrote: »

(or 1.5 weeks for years worked beyond the age of 40)

It's full years over 41 so you have to be 42 to start getting the 1.5 weeks

here is the table

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32555/dg_177260.pdf

getmore4less

Read up on counter notice to get round the you don't get paid if you get a job and want to leave early.

If you don't resign then to not pay the redundancy they would have to withdraw the notice, might be room for bluff if they got wind you had a job but were just holding on

PolaBear

getmore4less wrote: »

Read up on counter notice to get round the you don't get paid if you get a job and want to leave early.

If you don't resign then to not pay the redundancy they would have to withdraw the notice, might be room for bluff if they got wind you had a job but were just holding on

Could you explain this a bit more? Thanks for the advice people.