Advice please? Furlough/unfair redundancy. Please can someone help.

Tealmummy

Hello, could any one offer a little advice? I work for a small company- the owner and two employees.

In march myself and the other employee were placed on furlough. But last week were told we would be made redundant instead.

I have been there over 3 years so am a bit confused as to why i couldnt continue on furlough until october if necessary?

The owner has said it is because he knows work will not pick back up again but the government is okaying people who had been previously let go to be rehired just for the purpose of furlough, shouldnt i be ok to stay on furlough until october even if work isnt going to pick up?

He is also (in my opinion) keeping himself and his wife on the full amount of furlough even though she has never worked there- she is a director.

I have read that this could be considered unfair dismissal in the current situation as we could have been kept on at minimum cost and the situation looked at again in October? All i want is the 80%, im not asking for more.

Added to this- we also almost never get wage slips, the ones we do dont have the hours broken down on to them and according to the HMRC goverment gateway neither of us have actually been employed since December. (Even though i have been paid every month since then with the odd wage slip thrown in)

Is there any case for unfair dismissal here? Is it worth speaking to ACAS? I have tried speaking to the owner but he has just said its too expensive to keep us on and he knows the work wont pick up. 

I have said i would be ok with being paid after he had claimed it if that was the issue but he wasnt interested.

Please can anyone help at all? Thanks

calcotti

Even though you may be eligible for furlough it is down to your employer whether or not they choose to do so. He is not required to furlough you nor is he required to keep you on. However any redundancy must be in accordance with redundancy law and as you have been there more than two years you will be entitled to redundancy payment.
https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights
https://www.acas.org.uk/your-rights-during-redundancy
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/leaving-a-job/redundancy/redundancy-pay/

Tealmummy

Yes i understand that- and that the 80% was until august (not october as i stated above), but how is it fair to do so when the cost is very little to him?
because of his incompetance to report earnings to HMRC, i am in a bad situation to claim any benfits.

Tealmummy

This is the advice I have found on it-

"If your employer makes you redundant when they could perfectly well have put you on furlough at no additional cost (meaning that you had agreed to cut down your pay to the 80% reimbursed by the government), in our view, you may have a good case to argue unfair dismissal (if you have 2 years of service)

An Employment Tribunal will  look at the employer’s resources at the time, but if they had no cashflow issue (or if you had agreed to delay receiving your salary because your employer did not have the funds to pay you for now), it seems that making you redundant when they could instead have put you on furlough could be unreasonable"

westy22

Tealmummy said:

This is the advice I have found on it-

"If your employer makes you redundant when they could perfectly well have put you on furlough at no additional cost (meaning that you had agreed to cut down your pay to the 80% reimbursed by the government), in our view, you may have a good case to argue unfair dismissal (if you have 2 years of service)

An Employment Tribunal will  look at the employer’s resources at the time, but if they had no cashflow issue (or if you had agreed to delay receiving your salary because your employer did not have the funds to pay you for now), it seems that making you redundant when they could instead have put you on furlough could be unreasonable"

I'd love to know where you found that advice and who it was from.

unholyangel

Tealmummy said:

This is the advice I have found on it-

"If your employer makes you redundant when they could perfectly well have put you on furlough at no additional cost (meaning that you had agreed to cut down your pay to the 80% reimbursed by the government), in our view, you may have a good case to argue unfair dismissal (if you have 2 years of service)

An Employment Tribunal will  look at the employer’s resources at the time, but if they had no cashflow issue (or if you had agreed to delay receiving your salary because your employer did not have the funds to pay you for now), it seems that making you redundant when they could instead have put you on furlough could be unreasonable"

There's no requirement for your employer to be suffering cashflow issues in order to make you redundant. The requirement is your role being redundant and no suitable alternative. Not whether they can afford your role. 

Employers may sometimes use it as justification (to employees) for why they're making redundancies, but it's not a requirement of it. 

Tealmummy

unholyangel said:

Tealmummy said:

This is the advice I have found on it-

"If your employer makes you redundant when they could perfectly well have put you on furlough at no additional cost (meaning that you had agreed to cut down your pay to the 80% reimbursed by the government), in our view, you may have a good case to argue unfair dismissal (if you have 2 years of service)

An Employment Tribunal will  look at the employer’s resources at the time, but if they had no cashflow issue (or if you had agreed to delay receiving your salary because your employer did not have the funds to pay you for now), it seems that making you redundant when they could instead have put you on furlough could be unreasonable"

There's no requirement for your employer to be suffering cashflow issues in order to make you redundant. The requirement is your role being redundant and no suitable alternative. Not whether they can afford your role. 

Employers may sometimes use it as justification (to employees) for why they're making redundancies, but it's not a requirement of it. 

but how is this justified when the government has given the greenlight for people had left jobs previously, be re-employed specifically to go on to furlough?
there is no job for them either but they have a wage.
and what cashflow issues when the governement would be paying 80% and the employer wouldnt top it up?

poppy12345

A lot of posts on here suggest that employers haven't re-employed them and furloughed them. It does cost the employer to furlough you.

As has been said, it's entirely the decision of your employer whether they chose to furlough you and if they decide no then there's nothing you can do.

Illusionary

westy22 said:

Tealmummy said:

This is the advice I have found on it-

"If your employer makes you redundant when they could perfectly well have put you on furlough at no additional cost (meaning that you had agreed to cut down your pay to the 80% reimbursed by the government), in our view, you may have a good case to argue unfair dismissal (if you have 2 years of service)

An Employment Tribunal will  look at the employer’s resources at the time, but if they had no cashflow issue (or if you had agreed to delay receiving your salary because your employer did not have the funds to pay you for now), it seems that making you redundant when they could instead have put you on furlough could be unreasonable"

I'd love to know where you found that advice and who it was from.

Here, seemingly: https://workingfamilies.org.uk/articles/coronavirus-furlough/

I'm no lawyer, but I'd be very surprised to see this hold up in practice.

Galloglass

Going to an ET takes time. In anticipation of being out of work, you might want to start looking at benefits to fill any gap between your redundancy pay running out and the next income coming in.

There is a list of benefits checkers here

https://www.gov.uk/benefits-calculators

calcotti

Tealmummy said:

This is the advice I have found on it-

"If your employer makes you redundant when they could perfectly well have put you on furlough at no additional cost (meaning that you had agreed to cut down your pay to the 80% reimbursed by the government), in our view, you may have a good case to argue unfair dismissal (if you have 2 years of service)

An Employment Tribunal will  look at the employer’s resources at the time, but if they had no cashflow issue (or if you had agreed to delay receiving your salary because your employer did not have the funds to pay you for now), it seems that making you redundant when they could instead have put you on furlough could be unreasonable"

Quoting things without saying where the quote is from is not helpful.