redundancy advice

dori2o

My uncle has gone into work today and 6 of them, including my uncle, have been told they will be made redundant.

The company he works for was taken over 2 years ago.  He has worked for the company in it's various guises for 30 years.

The employer has said that regardless of what they have been told in the past he will only get Statutory redundancy equivalent to approx £12,500

A few questions please. (For info this is a large business with several sites).

He earns approx £500 per week, and is 60. Based on the Gov.uk redundancy calculator thats approx £14750. Can they legally pay less than this in any circumstance?

The men have been told they are redundant from today and will be paid for the next 30 days only, but the employer has requested they come into work week after next due to a lack of staff due to holidays etc.  1) Do they have to go in or can they call in sick for which they would get full pay under their employment contract?
2) having looked online it suggests that the notice period should be 1 week for year if worked there more than 2 years, upto a maximum of 12 weeks.  Can the company pay less than this, i.e. just the 30 days?

After a bit of digging by one of the men it seems that the company who now owns the business will claim they have worked there for less than 2 years as they bought the business less than 2 years ago.  Are they not protected under TUPE regulations? He was never asked to sign new contract or given details of amended T&C's.

Could this be why they are claiming they are due only 30 days notice instead of 12 weeks?

There has been very little consultation.  There were rumours last week of redundancy but no official channels. This week they get their marching orders.  Is this legal?

The business will continue and the job role remains but will be done by people with less service on lower pay.  Is this legal?  I thought redundancy meant the job role was redundant and no longer required?

My uncle applied for voluntary redundancy shortly after the new company took over with a redundancy package of over £27,500 offerred. He was refused as he was a 'Vital' member of staff.  Can this be used in any way to increase redundancy pay?

We honestly know nothing about the ins and outs of this.  We are looking for honest help not to be made to look stupid.  Please only respond if you can offer help and advice.  Thanks.

Masomnia

The government calculator sounds right. It's 1.5 weeks pay for every full year he's over 42, and 1 week for each year before that. It's capped at £525 but it sounds like that might not apply.
I wouldn't get hung up on the TUPE aspect as it's probably not a TUPE if they just bought the company, although he still has the length of service by the sounds of it.
They should consult with them, and at this point I would be asking what the selection process was and get this on the record.
Re notice yes it's 12 weeks, which if they don't work the company will have to pay in lieu. This is in addition to the redundancy pay.
Personally wouldn't ring in sick if they are not genuinely sick. If the company finds out they could fairly dismiss them for gross misconduct and then they'll get nowt.

DoctorStrange

Sorry to read about your uncle's situation.
I've been through a few redundancies and try to answer your questions, but it's best to speak with CAB or ACAS to ensure the best advice.

1) No, they can't legally pay less than the minimum due
2) The notice period is 12 weeks, which he'll either have to work or be paid in lieu for. He'll either have continuous employment with the same company for 30 years (if the new owners simply bought the old business) or his length of service will have transferred to the new business under TUPE if the old company was merged with the new - there's no way out of this as far as I can see. It sounds like the company he worked 30 years for still exists and it's simply the owners who changed, so I don't think you'll have much to worry about here.
3) As mentioned above, I'd seek clarity on the selection process. Specifically, I'd be asking what has changed since being deemed "vital". Remember, they can't discriminate by age and the selection process has to be fair. That said, I've been on both sides of the fence with redundancies and it's easy to engineer a selection process which looks fair and which gets the desired results.
4) You're correct to say the role, not the person, is made redundant. However, in practice, they'll just change the title or include a few extra duties here, change others there etc so that on paper it's a 'new' role. It's still worth seeking clarity on though, if only to show you know your rights and won't be scared off.

In total, I think your uncle is due £20,750 (i.e. the max statutory redundancy of £14,750 and £6,000 notice.) Bear in mind though he already has to work 30 days notice and they might just make him work the 12 (after all, they'e paying him for it) so I'd prob treat the £6k as wages and only count the £14k as redundancy. Certainly, that's how they'll be treated by HMRC.

Now, all of that said, one thing you wrote stuck out for me: You said:

"Regardless of what they have been told in the past, he will only get Statutory redundancy"

This may be important given other things you've said e.g. 

"He was never asked to sign new contract or given details of amended T&C's."

So, the first thing to do is check his written contract. If that didn't change with the new owners, it's still applicable and it may include details of how his redundancy should be processed. Don't get your hopes up too much, as I've seen contracts which state things like "You'll either receive £x, or you'll be treated in line with the company policy applicable at the time" which basically doesn't help much. However, if your uncle's contract is 30 years old, it may not have the usual get-out clauses we see today so it's worth checking. Does he still have a copy do you know?

Secondly, HAS he actually been told anything in the past about redundancy? Verbal assurances still form part of the overall contract, although they're obviously much harder to prove. If he has anything at all,  emails, leaflets, notice board clippings etc. these could be useful too.

What I'm getting at here is they can't just unilaterally say "regardless what we said before, here's the new rules". They have to honour existing agreements, albeit like I say they may be hard to prove.

Good luck