Voluntary redundancies capped at 12 years - is this allowed?

Throwaway1

My dad's work is about to start the redundancy process. He has recently turned 65 and has been working there 19 years. They have asked for volunteers to be made redundant but have said they are capping the redundancy at 12 years. I understand that the law states that statutory redundancy pay is up to 20 years. Is the company allowed to blanket refuse to accept applications for voluntary redundancy from anyone who has been working for longer than 12 years? I know they have no obligation to accept people who apply but I don't know if they are allowed to apply years worked as a rule.

Edited to add: the redundancy pay would be statutory pay.

lincroft1710

"Voluntary Redundancy" is not covered by employment legislation, it is for the employer to set terms and conditions for who can apply.

DullGreyGuy

It is only protected characteristics they aren't allowed to use to block application from (eg sexual orientation, race etc). I mean you could argue that by setting a maximum service duration it's an indirect form of age discrimination as clearly no staff in their teens/early 20s are going to have over 12 years continuous service. 

How much would the 12 years redundancy be under the company scheme -v- the statutory redundancy with 19 years? If the company scheme was still more than the statutory despite the lesser years then they could offer to take the cut in redundancy 

Unfortunately all the guidance from all the usual places like Acas assumes the person reading is wanting to contest being selected for being redundant rather than being excluded from it/not selected. 

Throwaway1

lincroft1710 said:

"Voluntary Redundancy" is not covered by employment legislation, it is for the employer to set terms and conditions for who can apply.

Thank you. I would presume that the protected characteristics still apply though?

Throwaway1

DullGreyGuy said:

It is only protected characteristics they aren't allowed to use to block application from (eg sexual orientation, race etc). I mean you could argue that by setting a maximum service duration it's an indirect form of age discrimination as clearly no staff in their teens/early 20s are going to have over 12 years continuous service. 

How much would the 12 years redundancy be under the company scheme -v- the statutory redundancy with 19 years? If the company scheme was still more than the statutory despite the lesser years then they could offer to take the cut in redundancy 

Unfortunately all the guidance from all the usual places like Acas assumes the person reading is wanting to contest being selected for being redundant rather than being excluded from it/not selected. 

The company scheme is statutory pay, they are a company who never goes one iota above what is legally required of them in any circumstance. I suspect they have taken advice and found that they are allowed to say 12 years with minimal risk but I wanted to check in case. As you say, all the guidance is about avoiding being made redundant.

FlimFlam01

Needs to work out if the voluntary package would be better than the statutory package and take it from there.  I'm guessing at 65 he'd probably be quite happy to get a tidy sum to kick off retirement.  Assuming he gets made redundant, maybe if he's thinking about it they might keep him on and wait for him to retire.

EnPointe

Throwaway1 said:

lincroft1710 said:

"Voluntary Redundancy" is not covered by employment legislation, it is for the employer to set terms and conditions for who can apply.

Thank you. Theoretically, does that mean they could say 'no women can apply' for example?

No because that would be in breach of the Equality Act 2010 on the basis of the  Protected Characteristic of  Sex . 

what is far more relevant to  the  OP case is what  this voluntary  scheme would pay at 12 years service vs the statutory  redundancy for 12 -20  years  for the individual in question  ( unless an enahnced payment was  contractually included  for  compulsory   redundancy) 

It is somewhat tenuous to suggest that the   voluntary scheme  discriminates on the basis  of age,  as if the voluntary scheme is unenhanced or less generous  than the  statutory and/or contractural  payments  if compulsory  rdundancy  was applied people with 12 -20 or 20+ years services ,  the  argument is that  longer serving people are less likely to volunteer for  redundancy  - which is the reverse to the normal fear / rumours around redundancy  where they will try to get rid of the 'dead wood'  

Throwaway1

FlimFlam01 said:

Needs to work out if the voluntary package would be better than the statutory package and take it from there.  I'm guessing at 65 he'd probably be quite happy to get a tidy sum to kick off retirement.  Assuming he gets made redundant, maybe if he's thinking about it they might keep him on and wait for him to retire.

The package is the bare minimum they can get away with. They definitely would rather wait for him to retire than have to pay him off but I was hoping that they may have slipped up by saying 12 years max and it could be proven to be discriminatory if there was a rule against it. It seems not though. Thanks.

Throwaway1

EnPointe said:

Throwaway1 said:

lincroft1710 said:

"Voluntary Redundancy" is not covered by employment legislation, it is for the employer to set terms and conditions for who can apply.

Thank you. Theoretically, does that mean they could say 'no women can apply' for example?

No because that would be in breach of the Equality Act 2010 on the basis of the  Protected Characteristic of  Sex . 

what is far more relevant to  the  OP case is what  this voluntary  scheme would pay at 12 years service vs the statutory  redundancy for 12 -20  years  for the individual in question  ( unless an enahnced payment was  contractually included  for  compulsory   redundancy) 

It is somewhat tenuous to suggest that the   voluntary scheme  discriminates on the basis  of age,  as if the voluntary scheme is unenhanced or less generous  than the  statutory and/or contractural  payments  if compulsory  rdundancy  was applied peope peopel with 12 -20 or 20+ years services ,  the  argument is that  longer serving people are less likely to volunteeer for  redundancy  - which is the reverse to the normal fear / rumours around redundancy  where they  will try to get rid of the 'dead wood'  

I struggled to understand the last paragraph, sorry. The voluntary scheme is just statutory pay, it is not enhanced.

EnPointe

Throwaway1 said:

EnPointe said:

Throwaway1 said:

lincroft1710 said:

"Voluntary Redundancy" is not covered by employment legislation, it is for the employer to set terms and conditions for who can apply.

Thank you. Theoretically, does that mean they could say 'no women can apply' for example?

No because that would be in breach of the Equality Act 2010 on the basis of the  Protected Characteristic of  Sex . 

what is far more relevant to  the  OP case is what  this voluntary  scheme would pay at 12 years service vs the statutory  redundancy for 12 -20  years  for the individual in question  ( unless an enahnced payment was  contractually included  for  compulsory   redundancy) 

It is somewhat tenuous to suggest that the   voluntary scheme  discriminates on the basis  of age,  as if the voluntary scheme is unenhanced or less generous  than the  statutory and/or contractural  payments  if compulsory  rdundancy  was applied peope peopel with 12 -20 or 20+ years services ,  the  argument is that  longer serving people are less likely to volunteeer for  redundancy  - which is the reverse to the normal fear / rumours around redundancy  where they  will try to get rid of the 'dead wood'  

I struggled to understand the last paragraph, sorry. The voluntary scheme is just statutory pay, it is not enhanced.

Voluntary schemes are often enhanced 

if this voluntary scheme is  the same as  statutoryy  but capped at 12 years , it is as others have commented   the reverse of the typical set of questiosn and concerns  where people are attempting not to be selected   or concerned that the   long  service would make them too expensive to make redundant  as  FILO ( first in last out)   is  often a criteria used in the scoring  unless  an employer hasa particualr  need or want to engineer out   older workers   ( which can be achieved by putting extra   weight on more modern  entry  requirements  for a role   where the  standards for entry have changed substantially over the past  40  or so years ) 

Throwaway1

EnPointe said:

Throwaway1 said:

EnPointe said:

Throwaway1 said:

lincroft1710 said:

"Voluntary Redundancy" is not covered by employment legislation, it is for the employer to set terms and conditions for who can apply.

Thank you. Theoretically, does that mean they could say 'no women can apply' for example?

No because that would be in breach of the Equality Act 2010 on the basis of the  Protected Characteristic of  Sex . 

what is far more relevant to  the  OP case is what  this voluntary  scheme would pay at 12 years service vs the statutory  redundancy for 12 -20  years  for the individual in question  ( unless an enahnced payment was  contractually included  for  compulsory   redundancy) 

It is somewhat tenuous to suggest that the   voluntary scheme  discriminates on the basis  of age,  as if the voluntary scheme is unenhanced or less generous  than the  statutory and/or contractural  payments  if compulsory  rdundancy  was applied peope peopel with 12 -20 or 20+ years services ,  the  argument is that  longer serving people are less likely to volunteeer for  redundancy  - which is the reverse to the normal fear / rumours around redundancy  where they  will try to get rid of the 'dead wood'  

I struggled to understand the last paragraph, sorry. The voluntary scheme is just statutory pay, it is not enhanced.

Voluntary schemes are often enhanced 

if this voluntary scheme is  the same as  statutoryy  but capped at 12 years , it is as others have commented   the reverse of the typical set of questiosn and concerns  where people are attempting not to be selected   or concerned that the   long  service would make them too expensive to make redundant  as  FILO ( first in last out)   is  often a criteria used in the scoring  unless  an employer hasa particualr  need or want to engineer out   older workers   ( which can be achieved by putting extra   weight on more modern  entry  requirements  for a role   where the  standards for entry have changed substantially over the past  40  or so years ) 

Yes, it is backwards to the usual case. In this case though, my dad does want to be made redundant and the employers want to limit how much they pay out and would rather get rid of those they can pay less to. I just wondered if they were allowed to do this so blatantly by setting a criteria that excludes him from applying based on length of service.