enhanced redundancy pay

yorkyred

I am being made redundant as company closing down the company offer an enhanced redundancy pay of 2 weeks pay x years worked for everyone whatever there age you would have thought this was age discrimination as I am 59 and have 10 years service and will get same as somebody 30 with 10 years service so wrong have contacted acas and they say it is ok by law could they be wrong?

getmore4less

It would be(potential) age discrimination if they gave different rates depending on age.

I say potential as redundancy seems to have an exclustion as statutory redundancy does discriminate as service aged 42 and over gets a higher rate at 1.5x so a company could offer 2 weeks for aged upto 42 and 3 weeks 42 and over.


(since someone is going to say 41, the actual rules are completed years over 41 so you don't get the enhanced rate unless you are 42+)

sangie595

No they couldn't be wrong. They are right. Provided that they pay at least the amount of statutory redundancy, past that they can do as they wish. The differentials in statutory redundancy are designed by law - so although they do discriminate by age, they are not breaking the law on discrimination. For an employer to offer an enhanced package based on age differentials, however, probably would break the law. I can see no justifiable reason for giving you a better redundancy package because you are 59 than is given to a 30 year old with the same years of service.

sangie595

getmore4less wrote: »

I say potential as redundancy seems to have an exclustion as statutory redundancy does discriminate

The exemption from being discrimination is only in relation to the statutory package because this is determined by law.

getmore4less

I bet plenty of places still use enhanced rates for over 42 by giving full pay not capped at statutory levels.

sangie595

getmore4less wrote: »

I bet plenty of places still use enhanced rates for over 42 by giving full pay not capped at statutory levels.

Sorry, but I don't understand your point. If the employer uses full pay for the calculation, it must be full pay for everyone or else that would be age discrimination. So it wouldn't matter if someone was over 42 or not - they would all get full pay. And it is quite possible that a 30 year old could be earning more than a 43 year old.

TadleyBaggie

It doesn't work like that, it's perfectly legal to pay enhanced redundancy payments based on age. I was made redundant 5 years ago, the standard rate was 2 week for every year of service, if you were over 45 it went up to 3 weeks for every year, over 55 (and I was 57 at the time) and you got 4 weeks for every year.

McKneff

As long as you are not getting less than the statutory and in your case you are not, by a long way, they are not doing anything wrong.


At 59, I would snap their hands off,

getmore4less

sangie595 wrote: »

Sorry, but I don't understand your point. If the employer uses full pay for the calculation, it must be full pay for everyone or else that would be age discrimination. So it wouldn't matter if someone was over 42 or not - they would all get full pay. And it is quite possible that a 30 year old could be earning more than a 43 year old.

The point is the 42+ service years get 1.5x at FULL weeks pay which is more than statutory.

sangie595

TadleyBaggie wrote: »

It doesn't work like that, it's perfectly legal to pay enhanced redundancy payments based on age. I was made redundant 5 years ago, the standard rate was 2 week for every year of service, if you were over 45 it went up to 3 weeks for every year, over 55 (and I was 57 at the time) and you got 4 weeks for every year.

Actually, if you are talking about the law, yes it does work like that. Simply because your former employer got away with doing it like that does not mean it is legal to do it. What you are describing is clear age discrimination, and if challenged in a court of law is very likely to be found to be so. The exceptions to age/service related enhancements are very clearly determined in law, and what you describe would not fall within those categories.

sangie595

getmore4less wrote: »

The point is the 42+ service years get 1.5x at FULL weeks pay which is more than statutory.

Ah yes, I see what you mean now. Yes, some places do that - although an awful lot no longer do. I recently came across a number of public sector organisations that have even reduced payments to the statutory cap for redundancy - something that was unheard of in the past.


In the example you describe probably nobody would think to challenge it (and it probably wouldn't be in anyone's interest to do so anyway, especially considering the cost of doing so). But we agree on the main point - ACAS were correct in their advice and the employer is acting within the law.