Employer made me redundant and is playing games with Job Retention Scheme

BadNeighbour

Hi all, never posted here before so if I'm breaking any rules or posting in the wrong place, I apologise. I'm just looking for some advice.

Since the Job Retention Scheme was announced, my employer has been attempting to game the system. He initially planned to claim furlough for all employees all the way back to 1 March, despite the fact the vast majority of employees were not furloughed and were working full time until close to the end of the month. I challenged him on this, robustly, because I rightly believed he was breaking the law. He changed his mind at the eleventh hour.

The next day, I received a notice for potential dismissal and was locked out of remote access to my computer. I was told my job was being made redundant, despite the fact I manage a team of people and that team is continuing on. No explanation for how I was selected to be made redundant was provided. I was told that because the money he was not entitled to was not going to come, the business was in a position where it needed to dismiss people. Unfortunately for me, I was just shy of two years into my contract, meaning I have virtually zero employment rights and despite the fact I know the only reason I was dismissed is because of my relatively high salary and the fact I would not need to be paid nearly as much redundancy money - which I'm pretty sure are not acceptable reasons to dismiss anyone - I have no way of challenging this decision. When I pointed out the Job Retention Scheme, he said that because he still needs to pay pension contributions and tax, it doesn't take all of the cost of an employee away, and at the time there was no certainty on when the grants would arrive - he didn't want to rely on it. He also for some reason doesn't believe the government is genuine when it says it is backing the business interruption loans, and is refusing to even attempt to get one because he thinks he would have to put his property on the line, despite all the statements from the government contradicting this.

I tried to put this terrible situation out of my mind, but then my final payslip arrived. The first issue was that they didn't pay for any holiday accrued during my notice period, which I challenged and managed to get put right. The second issue was that he is claiming furlough for the week between when I was given notice of potential dismissal, and when I was made redundant, meaning I only get 80% of my wage for that time. Because what I've read in official government advice points to the minimum furlough period allowed being three weeks - ignoring the fact it's a disgrace that they were claiming from this fund despite not retaining my job - I challenged this too, but they wouldn't relent. I then attempted to report it to HMRC, but the person I dealt with seemed thoroughly disinterested and implied in rather poor English that the company wasn't doing anything wrong as employers can ask for different furlough periods, despite there being absolutely nothing to imply this anywhere in the government's advice.

I find this absolutely baffling. How is it possible for a company to receive funding from a so-called Job Retention Scheme to subsidise the salary of employee who's job they have no intention of retaining? How is that not exploiting the system, and completely against the spirit of the legislation? Has anyone else had an experience like this, and is there anything I can do to sort this out, without spending more on lawyers than I've been short-changed?

One small detail I just thought remembered - during the week I was 'furloughed,' I had to prepare for a dismissal hearing that was a foregone conclusion, attend said hearing, and then had some time afterwards to make some submissions. Would this qualify as working, in your eyes, rather than being furloughed?

Undervalued

Whether or not your employer was abusing the furlough system, what is in little doubt is that it was lawful for him to "make you redundant" (i.e dismiss you) as you have less than two years service. The only exception may be IF you could show that the main reason for doing so was because you were asserting a statutory right. Without that the employer doesn't need a reason to dismiss and there is no legal power to compel him to give you a reason.

However, just saying to your employer "I don't think you are acting lawfully" isn't really sufficient. In any case, without an audit trail they will just deny the conversation. You say you tried to report it to HMRC but they weren't interested and said the employer wasn't doing anything wrong. Maybe they are right? Or maybe you are? Without detailed legal advice and possible test cases months down the line who knows?

I am sorry but I don't see you getting very far with this.

BadNeighbour

Thanks for the reply.

Yes I thought I was probably just stuck with this situation, I just had a bit of hope that someone might have been through something similar and had some luck. You're likely right that the company will get away with it.

Jeremy535897

Remember that what you are entitled to be paid, and what the employer recovers under CJRS, can be two different figures (although the first cannot be less than the second). If you didn't agree to a reduction in your salary to 80%, your employer is unlikely to be able to reduce it unilaterally (there may be some contracts that allow this, so check yours). I doubt there is any merit in pursuing a claim for unfair dismissal. Remember also that you have to agree to be furloughed (although not specifically in writing).

It seems to me that the relationship between you and your employer has irretrievably broken down, and you are better off working elsewhere. If you will need a reference from the employer, bear that in mind before taking further action.

sharpe106

I received a notice for potential dismissal and was locked out of remote access to my computer. I was told my job was being made redundant, despite the fact I manage a team of people and that team is continuing on. No explanation for how I was selected to be made redundant was provided. I was told that because the money he was not entitled to was not going to come, the business was in a position where it needed to dismiss people.

How many other employees are there?

 Unfortunately for me, I was just shy of two years into my contract, meaning I have virtually zero employment rights and despite the fact I know the only reason I was dismissed is because of my relatively high salary and the fact I would not need to be paid nearly as much redundancy money.

Probably true but try proving it, probably put yourself in the firing line by challenging him over the backdated furlough but again not much chance of proving it.

When I pointed out the Job Retention Scheme, he said that because he still needs to pay pension contributions and tax, it doesn't take all of the cost of an employee away, and at the time there was no certainty on when the grants would arrive - he didn't want to rely on it.

He also forgot holiday entitlement to.  Also how close the two years were you? As you would have gained more rights so more cost.

 He also for some reason doesn't believe the government is genuine when it says it is backing the business interruption loans, and is refusing to even attempt to get one because he thinks he would have to put his property on the line, despite all the statements from the government contradicting this.

Not too much you can do to change his mind. Although some companies have had horrendous times dealing with HMRC and now to be told the government is just throwing money at them it is hardly surprising they do not believe it.
The second issue was that he is claiming furlough for the week between when I was given notice of potential dismissal, and when I was made redundant, meaning I only get 80% of my wage for that time. Because what I've read in official government advice points to the minimum furlough period allowed being three weeks –

The minimum period is three weeks and with your agreement. Also they can’t use the money to pay for your week of notice.

Ignoring the fact it's a disgrace that they were claiming from this fund despite not retaining my job - I challenged this too, but they wouldn't relent. I then attempted to report it to HMRC, but the person I dealt with seemed thoroughly disinterested and implied in rather poor English that the company wasn't doing anything wrong as employers can ask for different furlough periods, despite there being absolutely nothing to imply this anywhere in the government's advice.

Ask to speak to someone else, chances are they have no more clue than anybody else as it updating all the time.

 I find this absolutely baffling. How is it possible for a company to receive funding from a so-called Job Retention Scheme to subsidise the salary of employee who's job they have no intention of retaining? How is that not exploiting the system, and completely against the spirit of the legislation?

I agree however the government is quite happy for employers to do that and even rehire people they have no intention of keeping. For any other benefit if people tried to find loopholes and go against the spirit of the benefit they would soon be crying benefit fraud and the daily mirror would have front page exposes but yet both the government and the media seem quite happy with it.

 Has anyone else had an experience like this, and is there anything I can do to sort this out, without spending more on lawyers than I've been short-changed?

I am sure plenty of people have had similar situations and lot of companies are using it to their advantage. But I am not sure what you can sort out even with a lawyer. Except maybe get your full week pay rather than 80% but that will certainty cost more than you get.
One small detail I just thought remembered - during the week I was 'furloughed,' I had to prepare for a dismissal hearing that was a foregone conclusion, attend said hearing, and then had some time afterwards to make some submissions. Would this qualify as working, in your eyes, rather than being furloughed?

Yes it is doing beneficial work for the company. Even though they will not make any money out of it they will still gain from the work done without having to pay for it.