Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • abrin2017
    • By abrin2017 5th Dec 17, 6:09 PM
    • 5Posts
    • 0Thanks
    abrin2017
    Settlement agreement - not accceptable
    • #1
    • 5th Dec 17, 6:09 PM
    Settlement agreement - not accceptable 5th Dec 17 at 6:09 PM
    I have a situation where I am being made redundant from work


    I have now been offered a fifth settlement agreement and although progress has been made we are now going around in circles


    I am disputing the holiday entitlement offered and more importantly the monetary offer for signing the agreement, giving up my rights.


    Initially they offered 500 and have now increased that to 600 (salary 25k + 8k bonus. 23 years service)


    From the start, the situation has been handled appallingly, the fact that they have offered more incentive to sign away my rights and that they will simply not make me redundant and allow me to retain my rights makes me think they are worried about any future action


    My question is where / who would be the better option to approach to get this matter resolved - the union that I subscribe to or a solicitor ?


    I want this resolved ASAP but I also want the best possible deal I can get


    Any advice appreciated
    Last edited by abrin2017; 05-12-2017 at 7:04 PM.
Page 1
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 5th Dec 17, 6:41 PM
    • 4,676 Posts
    • 7,893 Thanks
    sangie595
    • #2
    • 5th Dec 17, 6:41 PM
    • #2
    • 5th Dec 17, 6:41 PM
    I have a situation where I am being made redundant from work


    I have now been offered a fifth settlement agreement and although progress has been made we are now going around in circles


    I am disputing the holiday entitlement offered and more importantly the monetary offer for signing the agreement, giving up my rights.


    Initially they offered 500 and have now increased that to 600 (salary 25k + 8k bonus. 23 years service)


    From the start, the situation has been handled appallingly, the fact that they have offered more incentive to sign away my rights and that they will simply not make me redundant and allow me to retain my rights makes me think they are worried about any future action


    My question is where / who would be the better option to approach to get this matter resolved - the union that I subscribe to or a solicitor ?


    I want this resolved ASAP but I also want the best possible deal I can get


    Any advice appreciated
    Originally posted by abrin2017
    Settlement agreements on redundancy are very commonplace these days - and there's nothing at all in the offer that suggests they have any ulterior purpose. You should go to your union. But the amount they are offering is piddling - which is exactly what I would expect for an employer who is satisfied that they have done nothing wrong but wants to ensure that they don't end up with a huge legal bill over a hopeless claim. Frankly, if they thought you had a case of anything, I'd have expected a better offer!

    Whilst I appreciate you would like the best deal possible, remember there is another scenario - they can withdraw the entire offer, take their chances, and if you bring a case without cause, counter sue you for their legal cost. Which will cost a great deal more than 600.

    There is never only one perspective....
    • Xbigman
    • By Xbigman 6th Dec 17, 1:51 AM
    • 3,111 Posts
    • 1,348 Thanks
    Xbigman
    • #3
    • 6th Dec 17, 1:51 AM
    • #3
    • 6th Dec 17, 1:51 AM
    Whilst I'm no expert an offer of a weeks wages to go quietly after 23 years is a joke.
    How many are being made redundant? And out of how many? I'd be inclined to take my chances for that little extra on offer. Even if I was already selected for redundancy anyway I'd be thinking along the lines of stringing it out for as long as possible. Anything over a week and you're better off than their current offer.


    Darren
    Xbigman's guide to a happy life.

    Eat properly
    Sleep properly
    Save some money
    • gadgetmind
    • By gadgetmind 6th Dec 17, 11:46 AM
    • 10,795 Posts
    • 8,668 Thanks
    gadgetmind
    • #4
    • 6th Dec 17, 11:46 AM
    • #4
    • 6th Dec 17, 11:46 AM
    Read this -

    http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4395

    Unless all of the conditions are met regards legal advice, the agreement isn't binding.

    Your employer will usually pay for this advice.
    I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.

    Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 6th Dec 17, 8:48 PM
    • 4,676 Posts
    • 7,893 Thanks
    sangie595
    • #5
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:48 PM
    • #5
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:48 PM
    Read this -

    http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4395

    Unless all of the conditions are met regards legal advice, the agreement isn't binding.

    Your employer will usually pay for this advice.
    Originally posted by gadgetmind
    There is absolutely nothing in law that says the employer must though.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 6th Dec 17, 8:51 PM
    • 4,676 Posts
    • 7,893 Thanks
    sangie595
    • #6
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:51 PM
    • #6
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:51 PM
    Whilst I'm no expert an offer of a weeks wages to go quietly after 23 years is a joke.
    How many are being made redundant? And out of how many? I'd be inclined to take my chances for that little extra on offer. Even if I was already selected for redundancy anyway I'd be thinking along the lines of stringing it out for as long as possible. Anything over a week and you're better off than their current offer.


    Darren
    Originally posted by Xbigman
    After 23 years, what you are entitled to is the statutory redundancy payment. Nothing more, unless your contact says otherwise. Thinking that you are entitled to more is not an argument for thinking you might get more. Yes, by pushing back you might get more. You might also get less.
    • Xbigman
    • By Xbigman 7th Dec 17, 6:54 AM
    • 3,111 Posts
    • 1,348 Thanks
    Xbigman
    • #7
    • 7th Dec 17, 6:54 AM
    • #7
    • 7th Dec 17, 6:54 AM
    After 23 years, what you are entitled to is the statutory redundancy payment. Nothing more, unless your contact says otherwise. Thinking that you are entitled to more is not an argument for thinking you might get more. Yes, by pushing back you might get more. You might also get less.
    Originally posted by sangie595
    I did not imply otherwise. My point was that the extra offered was so small that agreeing to a settlement was pointless. The OP would be just as well off if they simply said they would think about it for a week and then said no.
    Likewise if no formal redundancy process has been done then turning down an offer would trigger the formal process which will take more than a week too.
    The bottom line is that one weeks extra pay to go with a settlement rather than be made redudant is pretty much a waste of tme.


    Darren
    Xbigman's guide to a happy life.

    Eat properly
    Sleep properly
    Save some money
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 8th Dec 17, 4:29 PM
    • 4,676 Posts
    • 7,893 Thanks
    sangie595
    • #8
    • 8th Dec 17, 4:29 PM
    • #8
    • 8th Dec 17, 4:29 PM
    I did not imply otherwise. My point was that the extra offered was so small that agreeing to a settlement was pointless. The OP would be just as well off if they simply said they would think about it for a week and then said no.
    Likewise if no formal redundancy process has been done then turning down an offer would trigger the formal process which will take more than a week too.
    The bottom line is that one weeks extra pay to go with a settlement rather than be made redudant is pretty much a waste of tme.


    Darren
    Originally posted by Xbigman
    personally I would agree. But I have the luxury of not needing a weeks money. Not everyone is in the same position, so they need to consider that the employers stance may be that they've done it all right but it's worth a weeks money to not have problems - but it isn't worth more, and they're happy to not pay it. Same coin. Two sides.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 8th Dec 17, 4:42 PM
    • 32,192 Posts
    • 19,351 Thanks
    getmore4less
    • #9
    • 8th Dec 17, 4:42 PM
    • #9
    • 8th Dec 17, 4:42 PM
    One issue with settlement agreement is it protects the employer during the 3month window to make a claim for something you have no idea about yet.
    • MoneyPit1977
    • By MoneyPit1977 19th Dec 17, 12:08 PM
    • 331 Posts
    • 1,049 Thanks
    MoneyPit1977
    I did not imply otherwise. My point was that the extra offered was so small that agreeing to a settlement was pointless. The OP would be just as well off if they simply said they would think about it for a week and then said no.
    Likewise if no formal redundancy process has been done then turning down an offer would trigger the formal process which will take more than a week too.
    The bottom line is that one weeks extra pay to go with a settlement rather than be made redudant is pretty much a waste of tme

    Darren
    Originally posted by Xbigman

    I would agree. A properly written settlement agreement will remove any rights you have to retrospectively make a claim against your prior employer. 1 weeks pay is not much in return for giving up all those rights.


    In terms of holiday pay there was a very interesting case recently which has got employers worried (I should know, I'm an HR Director) about retrospective claims for holiday 'back pay' and how this is accrued during employment. The findings of this case may not directly affect the OPs issue but it is worth looking into.


    https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/sash-windows-decision-leaves-employers-open-holiday-pay-claims/
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 19th Dec 17, 3:44 PM
    • 32,192 Posts
    • 19,351 Thanks
    getmore4less
    ......
    In terms of holiday pay there was a very interesting case recently which has got employers worried (I should know, I'm an HR Director) about retrospective claims for holiday 'back pay' and how this is accrued during employment. The findings of this case may not directly affect the OPs issue but it is worth looking into.


    https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/sash-windows-decision-leaves-employers-open-holiday-pay-claims/
    Originally posted by MoneyPit1977
    as I read it the

    Should only really worry you-
    if you have people on dodgy self employed contracts not getting any holiday pay.
    if you deny the chance for people to take their paid holiday and have a use or lose policy.
    if you have a holiday policy that does not provide enough paid holiday.

    and best of all it could reopen those cases where the back pay was limited as the liability for further back now becomes due on leaving so no 2 year limit



    If the EAT don't mess up this could be a good move as it could transfers more liability to the employer to pay for the holidays and get rid of the use or lose where employers try to stop people taking them as you just get them all paid when you leave.

    probably one for a separate thread to discuss.
    • MoneyPit1977
    • By MoneyPit1977 19th Dec 17, 3:57 PM
    • 331 Posts
    • 1,049 Thanks
    MoneyPit1977
    as I read it the

    Should only really worry you-
    if you have people on dodgy self employed contracts not getting any holiday pay.
    if you deny the chance for people to take their paid holiday and have a use or lose policy.
    if you have a holiday policy that does not provide enough paid holiday.

    and best of all it could reopen those cases where the back pay was limited as the liability for further back now becomes due on leaving so no 2 year limit



    If the EAT don't mess up this could be a good move as it could transfers more liability to the employer to pay for the holidays and get rid of the use or lose where employers try to stop people taking them as you just get them all paid when you leave.

    probably one for a separate thread to discuss.
    Originally posted by getmore4less

    Yep - a lot of employers do have a use it or lose it policy ..then it becomes more subjective as regards whether someone felt able to take holiday. I know I personally gave up 3 days last year as I had no time to take it...I don't imagine I was alone in that where I work!
    • gadgetmind
    • By gadgetmind 19th Dec 17, 4:00 PM
    • 10,795 Posts
    • 8,668 Thanks
    gadgetmind
    You need "use it or lose it" or people rack up silly amounts of holiday. I regularly lose days that I'm too busy to take, but so what?
    I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.

    Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 19th Dec 17, 4:33 PM
    • 32,192 Posts
    • 19,351 Thanks
    getmore4less
    You need "use it or lose it" or people rack up silly amounts of holiday. I regularly lose days that I'm too busy to take, but so what?
    Originally posted by gadgetmind
    That's up to you there are employers denying holiday those workers need protection.

    This will stop "too busy at work" being a valid reason for employers and workers can leave their claim till they leave rather Tha have to risk their job exercising their statutory right.

    Or employers have to implement carry over policies.
    • gadgetmind
    • By gadgetmind 19th Dec 17, 6:00 PM
    • 10,795 Posts
    • 8,668 Thanks
    gadgetmind
    Or employers have to implement carry over policies.
    Originally posted by getmore4less
    We do five days can be carried over, and more with manager's permission and if a vacation booked in "next few weeks". Before we did "use or lose" a lot of senior people were hitting 60-70 days untaken, which is madness.
    I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.

    Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,699Posts Today

6,453Users online

Martin's Twitter