Redundancy Pay and Disabilities

Another_not_new_user

avinitinatt wrote: »

Yes. But differently to an able bodied person of a different age? The equality act does include age.

Yes it does. But what it does not say is that all people have to be treated the same way. "Age discrimination" is allowed - it's "age discrimination to refuse to give pensions to people who are 40! If it said that all people have to be treated the same way, then people with disabilities wouldn't be allowed reasonable adjustments, because other people don't get them! So you are wrong - equality is NOT about treating everyone in the same way! In fact it is about treating people in different ways to make some allowances for groups of people typically discriminated against. It is about making generic "exceptions" to treating people in exactly the same way.


You are arguing that you want to be treated differently because you are you - an individual - not because you have a disability. Just because someone has a disability does not mean that they have a bad sickness record, or that they would find it harder to get back into work. It is you that has a bad sickness record and may find it harder to get back into work. You assume. There are people without disabilities that also have bad sickness records - perhaps they should also be getting more money to compensate for the fact that their sickness records may make it harder to find work? If not, why not - why should you get special treatment? It isn't their fault they have been sick, any more than it may be yours.


The fact that your partner has a low wage, or that your rent is high are personal circumstances. Lots of other people have partners who earn low wages, or have high rent / mortgage payments to meet. Pretty much everybody would like financial security - including an awful lot of people who are in work.


You can argue this as much as you like. There's a simple fact - no government is going to touch the redundancy laws. I could go into a whole dissertation on why the laws were framed in the way that they were - and there are reasons why - but it isn't relevant. They are what they are and they will not change; and they especially will not change during a period of higher unemployment and redundancies. There are certain things that are "untouchable". If you want to see a country grind to a halt and massive industrial action... if you want to see union membership grow exponentially.... try fundamentally altering the laws on redundancy. No government is stupid enough to touch one of the few, and relatively minor (in their terms), safeguards for employees turned out of their jobs.


It may not be "fair". Life isn't. And the equality laws are not there to make it "fair". Your energy is better spent on doing something to get another job, or examine your budget to see how you might make savings to help you whilst you do. Ranting about what isn't fair won't get you anywhere.

avinitinatt

What a contradiction.

fannyadams

I assume you've used THIS to calculate your statutary redundancy pay - some employers will enhance the redundancy pay and you sign a confidentiality agreement that ensures you don't approach them for unfair or constructive dismissal... You *could* argue that this is constructive dismissal as sickness absence is usually used to calculate who goes and who stays (I know as this was used on me when [STRIKE]I was[/STRIKE] my post was made redundant).
GOOD LUCK

Another_not_new_user

fannyadams wrote: »

I assume you've used THIS to calculate your statutary redundancy pay - some employers will enhance the redundancy pay and you sign a confidentiality agreement that ensures you don't approach them for unfair or constructive dismissal... You *could* argue that this is constructive dismissal as sickness absence is usually used to calculate who goes and who stays (I know as this was used on me when [STRIKE]I was[/STRIKE] my post was made redundant).
GOOD LUCK

Constructive dismissal is when someone resigns. Redundancy, whether fair or not, is a dismissal and not constructive anything. And the OP has not yet even been made redundant. They are at risk. And the OP has said it is a genuine redundancy and they have the opportunity to apply competitively for a replacement post. They might get it. They might not. Not everyone can get it, because there are more candidates than positions.


These days, filing claims for unfair dismissal when the dismissal is fair - and so far the OP has said nothing to suggest anything else - is an expensive business.


Sickness absence is a fair criteria for decisions - at best the OP may ask for some allowance to be made as a result of their disability, but given what they have said, that would probably still not be enough to make a substantial difference.

avinitinatt

Thank you both for constructive responses. I'm really very aware of what equality means, and over constructive dismissal too.

Redundancy is not dismissal, nethertheless, using sickness recording to make decisions when reasonable adjustments have not been made is an equality issue and could fall under the DDA, and not the constructive criteria.

I don't want to be a special case, or treated any better than anyone else. I want a redundancy package that will assist me to access work in the future, with minimal impact on my health and wellbeing. I think we all deserve that. That's equality. The age thing is a contentious point for me, obviously, because I believe that an age does not identify someone as an individual and my equal as a colleague. Do I agree with the way pensions are handled... Well that's another debate.

Id like to add that life isn't always fair, no it's not. But that doesn't mean that we should taken decisions made by the government and just accept them. That's why we have a vote, our say. I'm not one to roll over and accept things I can't agree with.

This has been so interesting, thanks all for contributing x

System

Redundancy is not dismissal, nethertheless, using sickness recording to make decisions when reasonable adjustments have not been made is an equality issue and could fall under the DDA, and not the constructive criteria.

I don't want to be a special case, or treated any better than anyone else. I want a redundancy package that will assist me to access work in the future, with minimal impact on my health and wellbeing. I think we all deserve that. That's equality. The age thing is a contentious point for me, obviously, because I believe that an age does not identify someone as an individual and my equal as a colleague. Do I agree with the way pensions are handled... Well that's another debate.

So you are saying that if you don't get an enhanced redundancy BECAUSE of your disability then you will go down the equality route?

It sounds like

I might sound a bit money grabbing here,

is correct

Pricivius

avinitinatt wrote: »

Redundancy is not dismissal, nethertheless, using sickness recording to make decisions when reasonable adjustments have not been made is an equality issue and could fall under the DDA, and not the constructive criteria.

Just to clarify a couple of points:

Redundancy is a basis for dismissal. The correct terminology is that a person has been dismissed by reason of redundancy. It is one of the five potentially fair reasons for dismissal.

Also, the DDA is now replaced by the Equality Act 2010.

Another_not_new_user

avinitinatt wrote: »

I don't want to be a special case, or treated any better than anyone else

x

Actually, that is exactly what you want to be. Your complaint is that you are NOT being treated as a special case. You aren't a special case - you have your equality and nobody is about to start discriminating in favour of you just because you want it.
This is sounding more and more like a tantrum - you can't have what you want, which is to be treated better than everyone else, so scream until someone listens. Be prepared to scream for a very long time... nobody is changing the law for you.

avinitinatt

No. I feel my point has been misconstrued, probably by my misuse of language. It's not a tantrum at all. I know DDA doesn't exist anymore, I just wanted to abbreviate to keep my post short. Apologies.

I didn't say the law would change. I feel disadvantaged compared to many other colleagues. I feel that many will be able to go out into the world and find employment far easier than I.

Many, not all.

Forgive me for feeling hard done by, but I do. It's a daily struggle to look after my own basic needs, let alone keep my job. Getting another job really seems impossible at the moment. I don't want to stop working, I love my job, I want to keep going for a long as I can. I know previous employees who have been sick and had higher payouts, so I know it's possibke for this to happen. Maybe because of my knowledge of this its put me in a frame of mind where I feel more entitled.

I do feel I've been misread somewhat. I'm just trying to get by and plan for what to do in the worst case scenario. Some comments have been helpful and I am clearer on where I stand now, but over all I feel demoralised by this conversation. It feels like a bit of an attack. I'm writing this not just for me, but anybody going through what I am. I won't comment further, as I don't want to feed the negativity on this post. Thanks.

TBagpuss

I'm sorry to hear that you are facing potential redundancy. I can understand why you would ideally like a higher entitled if you don't get selected for the replacement post, but as others have said, that is, effectively, asking to be treated better than others, not the same as them.

Bear in mind that it is not, inherently, any more expensive for an employer to employ an older person (other than at the point of making a redundancy payment) it will is more expensive for them to employ someone who has higher than average sickness. It may be worth keeping this in mind if you do try to argue for an enhanced redundancy package - your pots do come over as a bit entitled, and if that attitude carries over in real life you may disadvantage yourself in any negotiation you have.