Redundancy Payout Problem

justinjustice

I am posting on behalf of a colleague in hope for some support for him.

He has been an employee for a company for over 35 years and last year, 2018, he finally decided it was time to hang up and enjoy his well earned retirement.
Over the years he was considering retiring but his management always laughed at the idea and when mentioned anything about retirement was answered with 'you are too important and we need you so we would rip any letter we received from you'.

When he actually made a firm decision for retirement he was advised by his management that they would offer him a 12 months redundancy payout however if he could delay his retirement for a few months to help train up another individual, it would really help that department, as his role is unique and key to the department he works for.

He happily agreed and had no reason to doubt his management and whilst there was no paper work given to him to confirm the agreement, he was told it was a 'gentleman's agreement'.
In his 30 years, he had no reason to doubt the company as he was always well looked after - yes, he regrets this now!

So fast forward to a few months later to this year and the company has had some financial changes with mass redundancies across the board and subsequently the offer that was made by his management has now changed by HR to a 6 months pay out from the initial 12.
His management have been pushing to reinstate the 12 months, which is what HR and his management had previously agreed however HR came back with 6 months again.
My colleague rejected this offer on the matter of principal and they eventually offered him a take it or leave it off of a 9 months package pay out.
Again he rejected the offer based on principal, so they have now offered him again a 6 months package pay out and not budging.

Whilst my colleague has no written evidence via HR or his management, he now has call recordings from his management that clearly state what he had been promised and the fact that his management had this all previously agreed with HR (the name of contact in HR is in the conversation) and went as far as saying the HR Contact has been trying as well but due to changes they cannot honour the initially agreed 12 months pay out.

What options does my colleague have?
He could have retired last year on the 12 months pay out and be enjoying his life now however instead by staying over to help the company, he is having sleepless nights of how the company has essentially trying to screw him over!

Any help would be greatly really appreciated.

Thank you

k3lvc

Unfortunately I'm suspecting not much - I, with a not dissimilar length of service in a company I trusted was royally screwed over on a promised (but discretionary) payment even though I had evidence in writing

For your friend if I'm reading right they were happy to retire/leave with nothing but agreed to stay for 12m to effectively receive a(nother) 12m payout in 'redundancy' - in effect if they leave now and take the 6m they're still 6m money up on what they were prepared to leave with.

I'm sure someone else will give the legal aspect (well they will if there's anyone left who isn't PPR'd) but with 35yrs service I can't see how 26wks redundancy pay is legal :eek:

antrobus

k3lvc wrote: »

....

I'm sure someone else will give the legal aspect (well they will if there's anyone left who isn't PPR'd) but with 35yrs service I can't see how 26wks redundancy pay is legal

The OP was offered a bonus for delaying his retirement, Both parties may well have wanted to dress this up as redundancy for tax reasons, but I'm not convinced that the statutory provisions apply.

It's more a question of breach of contract I suspect.

Masomnia

My view on this, as a randomer on the internet, is that he's lucky to get 6 months. Unless there is something in his contract, company handbook or other policy that suggests he should get more.

There's no default retirement age anymore. And he's not redundant if there is still work for him to do.

So if he wants to 'retire' he's really just resigning in the usual way, ie. I'm off, here's a month's notice.

I don't see that an offer made months/years ago pre-restructuring is going to give rise to a contractual right to an enhanced benefit right now.

I totally see why your colleague feels screwed over, and if it were me advising I'd go back asking for the 9 month package to see if that's still on the table if he'll do full training for a replacement and all that. If not I'd take the 6 months, as far as I can tell it's more than he is legally entitled to.

If the company continue to push back he should he should get proper legal advice from a solicitor who specialises in employment law and who can review his case properly. If he wins his 9 months it would be quite substantially in excess of what he is entitled to legally if he is not redundant, so it's probably worth getting proper advice; but personally I don't see it. If he does I'd be interested in the outcome so keep us posted