[CLOSED]

PCKC

[CLOSED POST]

The_Flump

Your employer its not obliged to furlough you, or to keep you furloughed. The government have been clear that employment law hasn't changed and they are within their rights to make you redundant.

There are more costs to the employer than minimal 'admin' costs, and I would guess their decision is based on more than saving the minimal admin costs as there is significantly more admin involved in making someone redundant.

As for the possibility of a tribunal... I'm not sure how, considering that the employer is not obliged to furlough you in the first place and are legally entitled to make you redundant regardless of your furlough status.

Jeremy535897

Your reference about ignoring "the 2 year rule thing" suggests you might not have been employed long enough to have acquired much in the way of employment rights (as the link you refer to mentions). They are probably referring to a general duty of all employers to do the best for their employees, which Stuart Brittenden has discussed in some detail (see http://www.oldsquare.co.uk/images/uploads/news-and-media/JRS_Blog_14.4.20_SB.pdf ).

As to why employers prefer not to keep employees on furlough:

• holiday entitlement continues to accrue, and in most cases the statutory holiday pay will exceed the pay able to be claimed under CJRS
• some employment lawyers are nervous that keeping on employees whose jobs are already irretrievably lost is not within the spirit of CJRS
• you may accrue other statutory rights, particularly if your employment goes over 2 years as a result
• the administrative costs mentioned, plus the risk that for some reason the grant is denied after they have paid you on furlough

Thrugelmir

Have you asked your employer directly? Might be something that they haven't considered. How much notice have you been given? 

Galloglass

Asking an employer to reverse a redundancy decision is an invite to have the HMRC come and visit. As J says above

some employment lawyers are nervous that keeping on employees whose jobs are already irretrievably lost is not within the spirit of CJRS

No sensible employer would commit to risking their companies further. CV-19 has done enough damage without any self-inflicted damage.

25_Years_On

Surely a company still has pay national insurance and pension contributions. If they can't afford that they have little choice but to make employees redundant.

Jeremy535897

25_Years_On said:

Surely a company still has pay national insurance and pension contributions. If they can't afford that they have little choice but to make employees redundant.

No, these are recovered as well (the minimum pension contribution anyway).

Grumpy_chap

We (my wife) has exactly the same situation, i.e. on furlough and will now be made redundant.

Her employer has said on furlough until the end of June at 80% with the 20% top up (very generous) and then, as it stands, redundant from 1st July.  My wife asked about the extensions to CJRS and the employer has said they will consider it, but they feel the rules beyond July remain unclear and they don't want to commit until they know exactly where they stand.  The employer has said they will not provide any top up beyond 30th June.

The OP's employer may be in a similar position to my wife's employer.

One thing my wife has offered is to sign a settlement agreement before 30th June so that the employer is protected against her going back with any further claims after the longer furlough if agreed to.

Jeremy535897

Grumpy_chap said:

We (my wife) has exactly the same situation, i.e. on furlough and will now be made redundant.

Her employer has said on furlough until the end of June at 80% with the 20% top up (very generous) and then, as it stands, redundant from 1st July.  My wife asked about the extensions to CJRS and the employer has said they will consider it, but they feel the rules beyond July remain unclear and they don't want to commit until they know exactly where they stand.  The employer has said they will not provide any top up beyond 30th June.

The OP's employer may be in a similar position to my wife's employer.

One thing my wife has offered is to sign a settlement agreement before 30th June so that the employer is protected against her going back with any further claims after the longer furlough if agreed to.

Sorry to hear that. I wish her the best for the future.

PCKC

Jeremy535897 said:

As to why employers prefer not to keep employees on furlough:

• holiday entitlement continues to accrue, and in most cases the statutory holiday pay will exceed the pay able to be claimed under CJRS
• some employment lawyers are nervous that keeping on employees whose jobs are already irretrievably lost is not within the spirit of CJRS
• you may accrue other statutory rights, particularly if your employment goes over 2 years as a result
• the administrative costs mentioned, plus the risk that for some reason the grant is denied after they have paid you on furlough

Thanks for laying out these points - really useful. I'm very much doubting I'll be kept on the furlough then!...

Galloglass

One thing my wife has offered is to sign a settlement agreement before 30th June so that the employer is protected against her going back with any further claims after the longer furlough if agreed to.

In the normal course of life, there would be no need of this as a redundant job is just that. It is a sign that these hastily made rules will provide a field day for lawyers after the event - even if there is no basis of any claim.

As contract/employment law has not been rewritten such a waiver must have a "worth" for it to be contractually binding. What is the soon to be ex-employer offering and will it be covered by a non-disclosure / COT3

https://www.ergolaw.co.uk/blog/2017/what-is-a-cot3