Voluntary Redundancy and future employment at same firm

mcooke999

My wife has been offered voluntary redundancy at a well known high street company. In the guidance notes there is a paragraph stating that the employee or may not be employed at the firm in future if voluntary redundancy is accepted.
I can't find anywhere online that says this is the law and it seems a bit unfair to me as she might want to work there in the future.

Are they allowed to say this? 

getmore4less

They can put any conditions they like on a mutual agreement to terminate employment.

There are no laws that say you have to employ people.

employees could ask for that clause to be removed or modified with for example a time limit and/or geographical restrictions.
(but even then they can just not re-employ people) 

mcooke999

Thanks for that
Any idea why they'd put this type of clause in? It doesn't make any sense to me if it's intended as meaning forever.

Thrugelmir

The clause is generic. There'll be certain individuals that they won't wish to re-employ under any circumstances. I'm assuming that the total number of job losses is sizable. 

getmore4less

If the policy is not to take back people that have taken VR best it is known so people can make an informed choice. 

Manxman_in_exile

Am I the only person not surprised that they may not want to take back somebody they've already paid VR to?

Comms69

Genuine question OP - assuming this clause wasnt in the agreement. Do you think there is some kind of 'right' to be re-employed?

mcooke999

Comms69 said:

Genuine question OP - assuming this clause wasnt in the agreement. Do you think there is some kind of 'right' to be re-employed?

Not at all.

But I don't see the logic in preventing someone from ever working from the company again. I could understand why they'd not want someone taking VR and then applying for a job with them soon after, i.e with a time restriction of say 12 months or 3 years or whatever.

In my wife's case she is actually also on maternity leave at the moment so this took us by surprise a bit... They're asking a woman on maternity leave to decide if she wants VR but also whether she ever wants to apply for a job at that company ever again!

Comms69

mcooke999 said:

Comms69 said:

Genuine question OP - assuming this clause wasnt in the agreement. Do you think there is some kind of 'right' to be re-employed?

Not at all.

But I don't see the logic in preventing someone from ever working from the company again. I could understand why they'd not want someone taking VR and then applying for a job with them soon after, i.e with a time restriction of say 12 months or 3 years or whatever.

In my wife's case she is actually also on maternity leave at the moment so this took us by surprise a bit... They're asking a woman on maternity leave to decide if she wants VR but also whether she ever wants to apply for a job at that company ever again!

Well yes. I understand what you're saying. 

But ultimately pregnancy doesnt make someone incapable of making a decision. But glad we cleared it up

Thrugelmir

mcooke999 said:

Comms69 said:

Genuine question OP - assuming this clause wasnt in the agreement. Do you think there is some kind of 'right' to be re-employed?

But I don't see the logic in preventing someone from ever working from the company again.

The employees general work performance, attitude perhaps.  People are people. Know their rights and play the system. 

k12479

mcooke999 said:

...paragraph stating that the employee [or] may not be employed at the firm in future if voluntary redundancy is accepted. 

Does the section actually say they cannot work for the company again? The wording above is a little ambiguous. 'Shall not' or 'will not' would be clearer, 'may not' could be read as a warning that it might rule out the possibility rather than actually prohibiting it.

Regardless, it'd probably get forgotten about and disregarded after long enough or if it suits the company.