Redundancy Clawback if Rehired for Different Job

vacheron

If there is nothing stated in your contract or redundancy paperwork, then to me the main element would be where you mentioned "different job".

During (but not generally after) a redundancy situation, the company are able to offer you "suitable alternative employment". If any alternative job offer is considered too far removed from your previous role (such as significant changes to location, hours, salary or skillset) then it would be more difficult for the employer to argue that this is a "suitable alternative".

However, in this this case, the "skillset" element could be a tricky one to argue as if you applied for (and were subsequently offered) this job, it implies that your skillset must already have been deemed suitable by both parties.


My argument to the employer in your situation would be if the role you are applying for was not (or would not have been) offered to you as "suitable alternative employment" during your redundacy process, the clawback should not apply.

Taking the above to the extreme by way of example, what if the CEO of the company earning £500K year walked away with a £1,000,000 package and subsequently re-applied for a job in the postroom at £15K year just to keep himself busy.
Would he then be obliged to hand back £500,000 simply because because he was re-employed by the same company?

sheenas

It’s a hard one and maybe worth talking to them about a conditions in the job offer. Maybe some flexibility exists?

DullGreyGuy

vacheron said:

Taking the above to the extreme by way of example, what if the CEO of the company earning £500K year walked away with a £1,000,000 package and subsequently re-applied for a job in the postroom at £15K year just to keep himself busy.
Would he then be obliged to hand back £500,000 simply because because he was re-employed by the same company?

If thats what the terms are yes but then who's going to offer their former CEO a job in the post room? Recruitment is expensive and you'll almost certainly be concerned that they arent going to stick around if you do give them the job without a clawback and so you'll be having the cost of recruitment again... better get someone who's likely to stay for a few years. 

vacheron

DullGreyGuy said:

vacheron said:

Taking the above to the extreme by way of example, what if the CEO of the company earning £500K year walked away with a £1,000,000 package and subsequently re-applied for a job in the postroom at £15K year just to keep himself busy.
Would he then be obliged to hand back £500,000 simply because because he was re-employed by the same company?

If thats what the terms are yes but then who's going to offer their former CEO a job in the post room? Recruitment is expensive and you'll almost certainly be concerned that they arent going to stick around if you do give them the job without a clawback and so you'll be having the cost of recruitment again... better get someone who's likely to stay for a few years. 

True, but in a funny way The OP's employer is doing the exact opposite.

Here they are with the opportunity to hire an employee who knows and understands the company and their ethos, knows the business, and potentially knows the job, they also have a proven track record of reliability due to the fact that they only left their previous role because the company made them redundant and yet they wish to actively de-incentivize them from working for them again.   

DullGreyGuy

vacheron said:

DullGreyGuy said:

vacheron said:

Taking the above to the extreme by way of example, what if the CEO of the company earning £500K year walked away with a £1,000,000 package and subsequently re-applied for a job in the postroom at £15K year just to keep himself busy.
Would he then be obliged to hand back £500,000 simply because because he was re-employed by the same company?

If thats what the terms are yes but then who's going to offer their former CEO a job in the post room? Recruitment is expensive and you'll almost certainly be concerned that they arent going to stick around if you do give them the job without a clawback and so you'll be having the cost of recruitment again... better get someone who's likely to stay for a few years. 

True, but in a funny way The OP's employer is doing the exact opposite.

Here they are with the opportunity to hire an employee who knows and understands the company and their ethos, knows the business, and potentially knows the job, they also have a proven track record of reliability due to the fact that they only left their previous role because the company made them redundant and yet they wish to actively de-incentivize them from working for them again.   

They are certainly a known quantity, which can have its advantages over finding someone who's amazing at interviewing but not so good at their actual job.

Without wanting to cause offence to the OP, it's supposition to say they are reliable etc. Clearly we dont know if the whole department were made redundant or the OP was in a department of 50 and only 2 of them were made redundant... were it the later you may come to other conclusions. 

Certainly I've worked in large companies that has plenty of "dead wood", disengaged, doing the bare minimum, not a team player etc. Whilst some of the blame can probably be levelled at management it is very difficult to remove someone who's technically just about ok at their job.

vacheron

I guess, (and also without making any inferences towards the OP), I meant reliable in the sense that they hadn't jumped ship of their own accord prevously, so I really trying to convey "loyal".... which in hindsight would have been a far better word to use! 

Certainly I've worked in large companies that has plenty of "dead wood", disengaged, doing the bare minimum, not a team player etc. Whilst some of the blame can probably be levelled at management it is very difficult to remove someone who's technically just about ok at their job.

This is now a significantly growing cultural philosophy which apparently began in the US and is moving significantly into traditional regions that value extreme commitment to your job such as Japan and Korea, and is being referred to as "quiet quitting".

Andy_L

skint76 said:

I have received their letter, they are telling me I need to pay back approximately half of my ex-gratia payment for condition of re-employment. I have asked them to point me to the relevant section of my settlement agreement and the corresponding UK law. This sounds like discriminatory hiring practices to me.

being a former employee isn't a protected characteristic under discrimination legislation though

silvercar

It could be in the contract you are offered for the new job. The pay level will be set to effectively claw back the difference between what you would have earned had you been on full pay between jobs and nothing more. It is designed to not put you ahead of people who remained employed within the company for the whole time.

So if you had 6 months pay and were not working for 4 months, they would want the extra 2 months back. They could structure your new salary to recoup that amount over say 6 months. Make sure their calculation puts you at the former pay level for the time you were off work.

LeafGreen

Other issue is that first £30K of redundancy is tax free, so it can be seen as a tax swindle if someone gets rehired shortly after receiving a payout, and as such the missed tax would have to be paid.

Marcon

skint76 said:

I got made redundant, and have completed my gardening leave so am officially unemployed since about a month. I received statutory redundancy and a satisfactory package from my company.
I am looking at another role in the same company, less money, different job, different department.

I have been told to get hired for this new job, I need to pay back approx half of my settlement. 
I have asked on another sub here, but does anyone know if they can legally demand repayment on condition of employment? thanks

The fact it wasn't mentioned in your redundancy paperwork, but is being introduced now (yes, they can make it a condition of your (re)employment), might just be an indicator of the fact that they aren't too keen to have you back, for whatever reason?