Redundant 9 days before qualifying for pay

garreh

I'm being made redundant having worked for the company [STRIKE]just short of 23 weeks[/STRIKE] just short of 2 years - 9 days short qualifying for redundancy pay (min of 2 years required).

It does seem a bit unfair to not receive any pay - particularly as the company a few months ago asked everyone to take a pay cut of 10% before giving redundancy notice (presumably to re-coup some of the money for redundancy pay). I actually haven't signed the new contract agreeing to the reduced rate, yet they have assumed I've signed the contract and have been reducing my pay for a few months now, despite the fact that I've showed objections to a manager.

Would I have a fair case for getting some money back here?

marliepanda

How is 23 weeks 9 days shy of two years?

Unless you specifically went through the process of working under protest, and it doesn't appear you did, continuing to work after the new contract was issued is accepting it, signed or not. Objecting isn't the same.

ssparks2003

You accepted the news terms by not objecting to the new terms.

garreh

I should have said "just short" of 23 weeks to be more technically correct!

According to the gov website it states:

> If an employee disagrees with new terms and conditions but doesn’t say or do anything, this may count as agreeing to the changes.
> https://www.gov.uk/your-employment-contract-how-it-can-be-changed/dealing-with-problems

I have disagreed with the terms of the new contract by saying so to a manager, so this would count as working under protest? Or does it have to be more explicit i.e. I have to say or write "under protest" or something?

[Deleted User]

garreh wrote: »

I should have said "just short" of 23 weeks to be more technically correct!

Still a long, long way from 2 years.

Robin9

Still puzzled

Do you mean 23 MONTHS

(PS 2 years = 24 months, 104 weeks)

garreh

Doh! Homer Simon moment. Yes. I mean 23 months.

Out of the 730 days (2 years) I've worked 721 days, 9 days short of the 2 year mark to receive redundancy pay.

macman

Yes, it is 'unfair'. But there has to be a cut off point somewhere, and your employers are deliberately taking advantage of that with their timing. So, unfair, but perfectly legal, and you have no grounds to claim anything other than your contractual notice.

skintandfat

Are you actually redundant 9 days before the 2 years
You may have more than 9 days holiday to take- that could take you over the 2 years.

Undervalued

skintandfat wrote: »

Are you actually redundant 9 days before the 2 years
You may have more than 9 days holiday to take- that could take you over the 2 years.

Not for this purpose. The OP is entitled to be paid for any untaken holiday after they leave but it does not extend their length of service.

phillw

garreh wrote: »

yet they have assumed I've signed the contract and have been reducing my pay for a few months now, despite the fact that I've showed objections to a manager.

It may be too late because moaning but still turning up to work would be seen as begrudgingly accepting & that is good enough. You would need to put it in writing that you were rejecting the new terms, which would probably have triggered them getting rid of you.

In terms of redundancy, If the company is in severe financial problems then a pay cut and redundancies is to be expected. If they aren't in severe financial difficulties then the redundancy may count as unfair dismissal, you need to talk to citizens advice or ACAS.