Re-hire after Termination

emploee_77

Hoenir said:

emploee_77 said:

Realistically do I have any negotiating power?

What is on offer at the moment makes me tempted to take the redundancy which amounts to almost a full year's net salary.

If they wish to retain your services then yes you do.  Otherwise as you say, you take the package on offer. Unreasonable to expect someone to have to live off savings for a few months. 

I think my biggest issue in addition to the period of unpaid leave is that as well as losing this redundancy payment I will lose all of my accrued years so if a redundancy looms again, I will have nothing.

FlorayG

When were you advised you were at risk and when were you made redundant? Because if there is an alternative role available within the company and you were interviewed before your redundancy date, I'm sure you could argue for continuous employment terms. It's hardly your fault if it's taken them this long to make up their minds.
If they're not prepared to meet you halfway at least on this I would think they're not a good company to work for, however they may be within their legal rights

Grumpy_chap

emploee_77 said:

Hi All,

I was recently terminated by my employer due to redundancy, the enhanced payment is due to be paid at the end of the notice period which is on Monday.

In February I applied and interviewed for an alternative role but heard nothing back. Today I received a call to advise that I was the preferred candidate and the company would like to re-hire with with a start date of October once the screening etc was complete. However, they advised that I would have to forfeit the redundancy, go until October unpaid, and rehire and lose all of my employment rights (I had  7 years, 11 months of service at termination),

Whilst I am very happy to have been offered a new role, the deal sounds very unfair, am I wrong to think this?

emploee_77 said:

Hoenir said:

Why the break until October? 

Screening and background checks etc.

emploee_77 said:

Realistically do I have any negotiating power?

What is on offer at the moment makes me tempted to take the redundancy which amounts to almost a full year's net salary.

When was your employment termination date?

The no re-employment within x months or lose the redundancy is a common feature.  It has to be like that or the redundancy rules could be open to abuse.

Why do you need to do screening and background checks from afresh, given you are a known employee who, presumably, had these in place before?

You have quite a good negotiating position, but neither of the options presented by the employer seem good as you have described them in the thread:
If they had roles for which you were being considered, you could argue that there was never a redundancy situation - whether you want to do this is a question only you can ask.

However, the employer seems to want to have their cake and eat it:

• Either, your role was redundant, you receive the redundancy pay and employment terminated.
• OR, while your role was redundant, you were redeployed so you were never redundant, you receive continuous pay, you retain continuity of service, but you do not receive the redundancy pay.

The employer seems to want to take back the redundancy pay, but break continuity of service, and not pay you until you restart in October.  
How does the employer think you are meant to provide for yourself and family for several months with no income and no severance?

You can, as you say, keep the redundancy pay and take a year off not working and still be OK.
In that year, you can claim nJSA (which is not means tested) initially (assuming sufficient NI contributions which is likely to be the case if you were employed for the past 7 years).
In that year, you can get alternative employment, in the same type and level of role (how likely is that?), or in a less senior, lower paying role but subsidise yourself with the redundancy, or take a year off and enjoy, or a mix of these options.

What are your views on obtaining similar level employment within the year?

If you decide to stay, then you need continuity of payment plus continuity of service.
Without the continuity of service, but you sacrificed the redundancy payment, what is to stop the employer making you redundant in a months' time and saying "thanks - no redundancy entitlement as no length of service"?

saajan_12

emploee_77 said:

Realistically do I have any negotiating power?

What is on offer at the moment makes me tempted to take the redundancy which amounts to almost a full year's net salary.

Yes - if they hire someone else for that role then they have to pay your redundancy. If they hire you, they're saving that, so they'll still be better off if they pay
- your salary between now and Oct, probably 1/3 of the redundancy amount
- whatever additional benefits you have in having the longer continuous employment (vs you or another hire starting from 0)

If you can negotiate that, its still a toss up between redunancy + look for a new job VS this company, move to new role but with continuous pay. That's just based on if you think you can find another job well within the time covered by the redundancy. 

EnPointe

emploee_77 said:

Hoenir said:

emploee_77 said:

Realistically do I have any negotiating power?

What is on offer at the moment makes me tempted to take the redundancy which amounts to almost a full year's net salary.

If they wish to retain your services then yes you do.  Otherwise as you say, you take the package on offer. Unreasonable to expect someone to have to live off savings for a few months. 

I think my biggest issue in addition to the period of unpaid leave is that as well as losing this redundancy payment I will lose all of my accrued years so if a redundancy looms again, I will have nothing.

indeed it does appear to be a lose/lose scenario 

 there are two 'winning' scenarios here  

a. continuous service  and pay  between the proposed  end date of the current role and the start of the new role 

b. you get  and keep your payout   and   get to start the new role  on new terms and engagement 

 the question is  how you  and your union reps  and/or lawyers  want to negotiate this 

emploee_77

I have got a firm offer from the company, the crux is as follows:

1. My termination date was 6th June and I am paid up until July 4th. I am not allowed to take any job with the firm or any other firm before this date.

2. I have two separate job offers from the company, the offer is the same as what I was on in terms of salary. The one exception is that I will lose several days of annual leave due to being a re-hire which resets me to the basic allowance.

3. I will have between 1-2 months of unpaid leave from July 4th until screening is complete. The company has promised to speed this along as much as possible but there are no guarantees.

4. I will lose all of my redundancy.

5. I will not be able to maintain my continuation of service so if redundancy occurs again I will not receive any redundancy (it currently stands at one year's net salary that I am due).

On the balance, I think the offer is not good enough and I think I will reject it.

Hoenir

emploee_77 said:

On the balance, I think the offer is not good enough and I think I will reject it.

After the 5th July there's nothing to stop you applying for positions advertised by the Company.

There's no logic in the Company's position. I'd suggest that there's more going on behind the scenes than they can let on. Nothing personal towards you. Just business.  

jimbo6977

Do you really want to be associated with anywhere as shambolic as this place seems to have become? I'd take the money and run and not look back. 

Grumpy_chap

emploee_77 said:

I have got a firm offer from the company, the crux is as follows:

1. My termination date was 6th June and I am paid up until July 4th. I am not allowed to take any job with the firm or any other firm before this date.

2. I have two separate job offers from the company, the offer is the same as what I was on in terms of salary. The one exception is that I will lose several days of annual leave due to being a re-hire which resets me to the basic allowance.

3. I will have between 1-2 months of unpaid leave from July 4th until screening is complete. The company has promised to speed this along as much as possible but there are no guarantees.

4. I will lose all of my redundancy.

5. I will not be able to maintain my continuation of service so if redundancy occurs again I will not receive any redundancy (it currently stands at one year's net salary that I am due).

On the balance, I think the offer is not good enough and I think I will reject it.

So, you can:
 - be paid until 4th July
 - take the redundancy (one year's net salary)
 - take a year to do something different, find alternative employment (which you can also apply for the current employer)

OR:
 - be paid until 4th July
 - not get the redundancy
 - not work or be paid for July, August (possibly shorter, possibly longer)
 - re-join the company as a new starter with less annual leave, no continuity of service

It is wholly unclear why the company think the "not redundancy" option will be accepted.
There could well be, as mentioned above, something a bit more complex happening behind the scenes which might make sense in time.

Do you have an employable and transferable skill set?
Do you reasonably expect to get new employment in less than a year?

nyermen

And to add (sorry if I missed the point being made) - they could get rid of you on the first day with no reason (less than 2 years) and will have basically saved themselves all the redundancy cost.

That said - if this is really termination and rehire, but loss of "redundancy package", wouldn't statutory redundancy still apply?  They surely can't argue that basically they can avoid all the employment rights of the employee, skip those costs, remove long service history, not pay for a few months, and at the end the employee is back to new hire rights?

Basically, taking the best of both sides of the coin?  Sounds even worse than fire and rehire.

Side point (trying to avoid political discussion) - a policy of one of the likely parties for government (lets call it the "red scenario" ) is to apply full employment rights on day one rather than after two years I think?  If that is enacted quickly, that may well apply to OP if they took the job?