Sudden redundancy - settlement offered but can we angle for more?

starrybear

Husband offered redundancy very suddenly today (completely blindsided- he's reeling)

Has been offered a settlement, and given 10 days to make a decision during which time he has to seek and engage legal advice. 

The settlement is fair(ish) on paper - more than 3 times what he'd be entitled to at a statutory rate, but that doesn't amount to even a year's salary. I think hes more sad that the 14 years he's put into the company and his role amounts to such an unsentimental sum - definitely not life changing.

Anyway, I'm wondering what the angle is from a solicitors POV once we engage them? Husband is being offered £500 by his company in order to seek this advice - will a solicitor be keen to take a case (as opposed to simply checking over the legal docs and OK-ing them) with a view to negotiating a larger settlement (and therefore a larger fee, that we'll be liable for)?

Husband is deffo not greedy (I'm probably more so!) but should he just be taking the money and running or should he be pushing for more from a company who've screwed him? (But we know it's just a business decision blah, blah, blah)

Thanks in advance

Hoenir

The employer could equally reduce or withdraw their offer entirely. What case does your husband have?  £500 doesn't pay for much solicitor's time. £100 of it will go in VAT. 

starrybear

I mean, probably no case at all. Like I said, compared to what he'd get if it was just statutory its generous I suppose, but when we seek advice, which we need to, will a solicitor be wanting to build a case to push for more? Or is it just a case of my husbands company paying for a self appointed solicitor to cross the t's and dot the i's?

MattMattMattUK

starrybear said:

Husband offered redundancy very suddenly today (completely blindsided- he's reeling)

Has been offered a settlement, and given 10 days to make a decision during which time he has to seek and engage legal advice. 

The settlement is fair(ish) on paper - more than 3 times what he'd be entitled to at a statutory rate, but that doesn't amount to even a year's salary. I think hes more sad that the 14 years he's put into the company and his role amounts to such an unsentimental sum - definitely not life changing.

Anyway, I'm wondering what the angle is from a solicitors POV once we engage them? Husband is being offered £500 by his company in order to seek this advice - will a solicitor be keen to take a case (as opposed to simply checking over the legal docs and OK-ing them) with a view to negotiating a larger settlement (and therefore a larger fee, that we'll be liable for)?

Husband is deffo not greedy (I'm probably more so!) but should he just be taking the money and running or should he be pushing for more from a company who've screwed him? (But we know it's just a business decision blah, blah, blah)

Thanks in advance

They have not screwed him and I would say that offering him three times statutory is them going out of their way to not screw him. I think they are highly unlikely to offer more considering they could just offer one third of what they are already offering. If he has been there 14 years and they are offering three times the statutory that means 42 weeks pay as a minimum, with the first £30k tax free which means that he would end up with more than a year of net income. I think you are being highly realistic in wanting more and using your own terminology are being "greedy", I also think you are playing with fire by not taking the offer. 

starrybear said:

I mean, probably no case at all. Like I said, compared to what he'd get if it was just statutory its generous I suppose, but when we seek advice, which we need to, will a solicitor be wanting to build a case to push for more? Or is it just a case of my husbands company paying for a self appointed solicitor to cross the t's and dot the i's?

There is no "case" for a solicitor to take a such, they just need to review the documents (probably done by a paralegal) and sign off that no laws are being broken. The company cannot self appoint a solicitor, the law requires an independent solicitor to review the offer for the employee, hence him having to find his own even though the company will reimburse him for that cost. No one is going to take on a negotiation for a larger settlement because there is no negotiation, from the employer's position, take the enhanced offer, or take statutory which is far cheaper for them. Negotiation requires that both sides have a position of strength, by offering him three times they have played their hand, they played a Royal Flush, you cannot bluff them because there is no better hand, so you can either take their offer or try to play on, where every option you choose to play on is a worse outcome than the deal you have already been offered. 

starrybear

Super-helpful replies - thank you so much

Brie

The only thing that might be debated is the reason for the redundancy.  Is it fair?  Has he been treated the same as others or is he being "fired" but with a pay off?  Any reason to think he should be kept and someone else booted out instead?  

If it's a fair dismissal then take the money and run.  But it won't hurt to talk to a solicitor just so they can check the paperwork/background of what's happened.  

YBR

The only reason they might have to offer more than statutory is if there is a contract saying something above that, which would be quite rare, even 14 years ago. Like @Brie says the other question might be unfair dismissal such as biased selection criteria (if n of m employees are made redundant), or the roles is not truly redundant they're giving it to someone else.

While 10 days (is that 10 working days) isn't long, get the documents reviewed, look out for non-disclosure, or restrictions on taking roles with competitors, and providing the legal opinion is that it's OK, take the generous settlement.

Cobbler_tone

Something is slightly out of the ordinary as for a
redundancy you wouldn’t involve a solicitor.
If it was VS or a compromise agreement you would. I suspect it is the latter.
If it is a true redundancy there should have been a ‘meaningful consultation’ with him, although no legal timescale.
TBH I’d take the money and run. He will have zero chance of keeping his job.

daveyjp

My wife ran a business and had to make everyone (including herself) redundant.  An agreement was drawn up and all the staff were invited to get their own legal advice which the company paid for.  Some did so, many staff didn't bother.

This was purely to ensure the agreement covered the peincipal terms of what was agreed between the parties and that it contained nothing which was potentially disadvantageous to the staff member.

Brie

i've been in a number of redundancy situations - large groups of us being booted out so no discrimination (as far as any of us could see.)  Can't recall a solicitor being a possibility but the terms looked far to me and frankly with the last one with me being 14.5 years with the company and getting a full year salary payout (considering tax free etc) I was happy to nab it.  Plus it was when I was 6 months from full retirement age (not that I had planned on quitting.)  But that meant I could get my full pension within a year.  Also that I could take all my share benefits (significant advantage). So I was the only one cheering in the building that they were shutting down.  Complete win for me.  And I was ready to move on.  And moved to a smaller role on the recommendation of someone I'd met from the business.  3 years later I've finally retired.  It worked out well.  Hopefully it will for your OH too.

Stop. Think. Run the numbers and see how it works for everyone.  When the redundancy actually happens take a couple of weeks to decompress and then get on to job searching.  Too many people being made redundant wait a full year (or whatever) to start and then are feeling pressured to take anything.  Don't forget too to look at getting job seekers allowance.  No point in passing up money even if dealing with DWP is a complete pain in the bottom.

Hoenir

Cobbler_tone said:

Something is slightly out of the ordinary as for a
redundancy you wouldn’t involve a solicitor.

Normally redundancy doesn't require your signature on a legally binding agreement. Once signed. There's no second bite of the cherry.  Agreements can also contain clauses relating to being employed by competitors or relationship's with customers.  The dangling carrot is large for a purpose.  There's method behind the generosity.