Made redundant then gave my notice

lalique

Hello

Please can you help me with where I stand? My employer gave me notice that they were relocating the business and offered me employment at the new location with better pay and milage pay. However I thought it was too far to travel (just over an hour) so i turned it down and i have been offered employment which I can go straight into in the same town.
Because of this i gave my notice to my employer. Does this mean I am entitled to redundancy pay? My employer technically didn't give me notice as they offered me employment elsewhere but when i refused i gave notice...
Not sure where i stand.
Thanks in advance

sheslookinhot

No redundancy pay is due. You handed in your notice.

lincroft1710

An hour's travel would not be unreasonable. Unless you gave your notice after you had been given notice of redundancy and have over 2 years service, you have no right to redundancy pay.

London50

You only get redundancy pay when your company wants/needs to reduce staff.As you were offered a position in the new place and with a rise and mileage as well for the change the job you were doing was not redundant,you decided not to take the offer and gave notice so how you can think you have been made redundant I cannot understand.
As others have stated you are not due anything other than the wages and any holiday pay.

jonnygee2

You only get redundancy pay when your company wants/needs to reduce staff

That's not entirely accurate. They don't need to reduce the overall number of staff for it to be a redundancy.

Work positions are tied to locations. If you move an office, you often have to make some positions redundant. https://www.gov.uk/employer-relocation-your-rights

As you were offered a position in the new place and with a rise and mileage as well for the change the job you were doing was not redundant

Not necessarily. It depends if the location was 'reasonable' or not. If it was too far, it wouldn't be a suitable offer of employment and redundancy might apply.

An hour's travel would not be unreasonable.

Not necessarily the case either. Personal circumstances are relevant too. If you go from 10 minutes travel to an hour and that affects someones ability to pick up their children from school, then it's probably unreasonable for that employee.

However, in this case, as the OP handed in their notice none of this will apply.

London50

But as you say in this case {and that was only what I was getting at} if the OP hands in their notice as it did not suit them then no redundancy is in order.
Many people {including myself before I retired} went from a 5 min stroll to work each day to a 2 hour 3 train change journey. I carried on working for that company for over 10 years after the move as I had a raise that covered IMO my time and only moved on once I was unable through age to handle the work load {manual work}and I was sorry that I had to give it up.
I think too many people want their cake and eat it these days as there is no way I can see how anyone can hand in a notice to quit and expect to be paid off with a redundancy package because they cannot for any reason except the new terms that have been offered

jonnygee2

Many people {including myself before I retired} went from a 5 min stroll to work each day to a 2 hour 3 train change journey. I carried on working for that company for over 10 years after the move as I had a raise that covered IMO my time and only moved on once I was unable through age to handle the work load {manual work}and I was sorry that I had to give it up.

Okay but we have precedent and statute about what the law considers reasonable and when employers have to consider redundancy. Our own personal opinions on the matter aren't relevant.

We are agreed the OP is not entitled to anything. I was just clearing up a few misundstandings on the thread about office moves so the thread is clear for anyone who looks it up later.

lincroft1710

jonnygee2 wrote: »

Not necessarily the case either. Personal circumstances are relevant too. If you go from 10 minutes travel to an hour and that affects someones ability to pick up their children from school, then it's probably unreasonable for that employee.

It may be "unreasonable" for a particular employee, but an hour's commute is nowadays generally not considered unreasonable.

jonnygee2

It may be "unreasonable" for a particular employee, but an hour's commute is nowadays generally not considered unreasonable.

Yes, that's what I said. In some cases it is considered unreasonable.

lalique

Many thanks for your replies. I will speak to my employer

unforeseen

Don't you mean ex employer?