Redundancy. Has company followed protocol?

flanajb

Hi,

The project I am working on is coming to an end mid June and I received an at risk letter at the end of April informing me the project was terminating and I had the following choices.

1) Look for another role in the org. I already had another role to move to.

2) Tick the box that said I will take redundancy and my employment will terminate end of May 2015

I ticked box 2, but heard nothing more. I then arrive home on Friday to find my P45 had been sent to me with a termination date of 29th May

Now, what I find very strange is as follows.

1) I am on a 3 month notice period.
2) I have been with the firm 10 years and if I include 3 months notice it takes me to 5 days short of my 11 year period.

I am starting to think the firm chose the end of May so I did not go into 11 years.

The question I have is as follows.

1) P45 before I have been paid or finished 3 months gardening leave?

2) As you accrue leave during the notice period, would this take me over the 11 year period. I don't think it does as they can just tell me to take my leave?

3) Although I signed the 'At Risk' letter, I would have expected a more formal meeting with HR. Aside from a 'Thanks for your service' email and the P45 there has been nothing.

PS - I work for a very large corporate so would expect this to have been done correctly.

Many thanks

skintpaul

Have the paid you to end of June, plus any loyalty(!) enhancement? unused holiday leave?

agrinnall

Well, 29th May is not 3 months from any of the dates mentioned, so are you getting PILON (Pay In Lieu Of Notice) in addition to your redundancy pay? If not then there's a breach of contract straight away. Personally I would seek professional advice to ensure you get what is due to you.

Undervalued

agrinnall wrote: »

Well, 29th May is not 3 months from any of the dates mentioned, so are you getting PILON (Pay In Lieu Of Notice) in addition to your redundancy pay? If not then there's a breach of contract straight away. Personally I would seek professional advice to ensure you get what is due to you.

PILON itself CAN be a breach of contract unless the contract specifically allows for it. Most do, but if not then this is one of the few situations were an employee may well prefer to work his notice (so as to cross into another year's redundancy entitlement) rather than be paid not to!

lynsayjane

Having just gone through this it does sound very different to what I experienced. In my case there was an initial group meeting to be told there was a risk of redundancy and that those in teh room were at risk. An initial individual meeting where we discussed the criteria being used. A second individual meeting where I was told my score and that I was in the bottom two (there were 2 of 7 going) at which point I had the chance to disagree and put my case forward for any marks I felt unfair. A third individual meeting where my final mark was discussed and I was being let go. At this point I was told what the package would be and what dates etc were involved. In my case the end of the pension year was 6 weeks away and as there were a number of people going they had chosen that date for all. I was also informed that they wouldn't be asking me to work my notice so I had 6 weeks garden leave. In my final salary I received my redundancy monies, accrued but unused holiday pay and pay for the notice/garden period.
When I received all the documentation and contract of redundancy etc I was obliged to have it all counter signed by a lawyer at the companies expense. I had to chose and engage the lawyer but the bill was issued to my employer.

I'm unsure how voluntary redundancy procedures would vary from enforced redundancy but would have expected similar steps and meetings to be involved.
Perhaps contact CAB or an employment lawyer for clear information.

Hope this helps

Andypandyboy

I think that if you were required to have the offer countersigned by an independent lawyer it was a "settlement" rather than a redundancy. Unless they were just coverng themselves.

lynsayjane

I'm unsure but it was definitely a redundancy. The lawyer didn't see anything strange with it.