Lied to at a redundancy meeting

Majestic12

Negotiation is a part of life. You were not lies to, you are getting statutory minimum, though you could have negotiated for higher.

moneyistooshorttomention

It does begin to look like the way the company lied was using what I call "weasel words" - ie "Everyone is getting the basic redundancy money", but carefully omitting to say that some are getting "ex gratia" payments on top.

The company did lie. OP knows they lied. They didn't tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". They used weasel words carefully phrased by the sound of it. They knew very well what question OP was asking, but chose to answer a different one basically by the sound of it.

It looks like if OP confronted them about their lying they would just turn round and use very "careful" phrasing (more of those "weasel words") to make out that they didn't and if called on it would lie again and say something along the lines of "Oh...whoops...silly us....we misunderstood OP's question to us" and I have a feeling that, whilst a very quizzical eyebrow got raised in their direction, they would be allowed to get away with it.

Probably the best course of action in the circumstances that they've played that trick is:
- OP feels quite free in personal conversations (ie not on Facebook then....) to say what they did to him

- OP still gets the reference he is due for anyway from them

- They don't have any excuse to cut the amount of money already agreed with OP

- Be very wary in future about anyone else pulling The Weasel Words Stunt (yep...I guess many of us fall for someone doing that at some point - vendor of my current house I'm looking at you..:cool:).

When I had that stunt pulled on me (by that house vendor) I can see, in hindsight, that what I needed to do was to forensically examine literally every single word he said to me and write it down as he said it and get him to sign my notes made of what he said at the time. With a Weaseller you need to say "You have just said x to me. What I understand by x is such-and-such. Can you confirm that such-and-such is exactly what you meant when you used this word/that phrase". Weasellers do have to be virtually "pinned to the board" to prevent them pulling their stunts.

Ballard

There is no doubt that they lied to me and that is my only gripe. They are allowed to pay me the statutory minimum and someone else £100,000.00. I fully accept that and have not moaned about that. I can't moan about it.

My whole point is that because they told me that everyone who wasn't asked to stay on was only getting the statutory minimum and no more (this was the question that I asked twice during my meeting) I accepted my agreement. I did not have all of the facts; worse than that I had some facts and some lies.

Had I been told that they would not disclose whether anyone else was getting more than the minimum then, again, I would not have an argument.

The point made about me keeping a confidence is a valid one but I haven't told anyone the details and if I were to take it further then the only people who would be informed would be the GM & HR. Even then I wouldn't mention amounts (I honestly don't remember them anyway).

As it happens they are increasing everyone's settlement figures and I'll find out in a week or two what the revised amount will be.

Vectis

I really can't see what you're complaining about. You agreed a figure with them which, I presume, you were happy with? Now, because you've used your privileged position to see what others are getting, you're dissatisfied.

That's why these things are confidential.

There's a load of reasons why what you were told AT THAT TIME could actually have been true and a load more reasons why you shouldn't have been told what others were getting anyway.

Your reason for wanting to bring it up now is, you said in one of your posts, simply to annoy them. This doesn't sound like the best reason in the world and will probably result in you getting the bare minimum payment and no 'retention bonus'.

But, of course, it's up to you, isn't it? Stick with what you've agreed or kick up a fuss and risk getting less.

TravellingJake

This is a similar situation to my mum except the company openly disclosed that other people will get extra money, seemingly, on the basis that they're paid monthly rather than weekly. Where is the justification for this?

It doesn't appear to be a case of seniority, as salaried colleagues at all levels are getting the extra amount whereas none of the weekly paid staff are.

Is this right, legal?

Ballard

The general consensus appears to be that I wasn't lied to (which I dispute as it's clear that I was) and that I have no basis to contest the decision. I therefore have to accept that there's no point in me doing much about it.

I appreciate everyone's input.

I consider this matter closed and won't be replying again.

xsinaftersinx

It is a negotiation between an employer and the employee, the OP said at the start that there were settlement agreements in place.

A good solicitor can negotiate a better deal for their client. I was made redundant a few years ago, I got a good solicitor, the original offer was a statutory payment, my solicitor wrote a letter and I got 4 times the original offer.

I know I got more than others, I don't feel bad about it, it's a negotiation and I got myself a good Solicitor. The company are in no position to discuss amounts that other people may be getting, all people were getting the statutory but the agreement that is signed will state that neither party can discuss the agreement to any 3rd party.

Ballard

I have no desire to go back to the original point but just to show how inept my workplace has been the last few years the HR person (whom I like personally) had no idea that the cap was raised in April. It's not going to make a huge difference to my life but I'm entitled to £192.50 extra. All those who have been made redundant since April (half a dozen or so) have been paid below the legal minimum.

I've been contacting those affected to let them know. Most will be entitled to nearer £50 but they should still booming well get it.

As for me, I'm over it. I've decided to take the opportunity to take the longest holiday (6 weeks) that I've ever taken and hope to start work soon into the new year. Sometimes you have to realise that life's just too short to get wound up by this sort of thing.

LuckyPenny

You wouldn't really know without seeing a full breakdown of the figures. If it's done under a settlement / compromise agreement then that's confidential between management and your colleague. There could be a genuine reason for the difference, your colleague may have negotiated a higher 'loss of office' figure. Confidentiality surrounding the agreement means that HR or your colleague can't discuss the detail. However, I agree that they should have said that they could not discuss other people's illustrations. I doubt that your rep will be able to do much if all of the agreements are signed and sealed.