Redundancy or not as the case may be
07 December 2009, 11:13 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redundancy or not as the case may be
Wifette works part time term time and has been at same place of work for past 12 years. In the last 5 years they outsourced her role to a large computer consultancy and she Tupe'd across. Since then the contract has been awarded to another large computer consultancy and she has Tupe'd again, keeping all her t&cs from the original employment.
Now employer wants to move the work she does to East Europe, effectively meaning she is out of a role. They are now advising her that it is unlikely they will find her anything because she is part time term time.
They are suggesting she takes a pay off to leave, note they are not referring to it as redundancy, however although the terms of her contract stipulate a month for every year (which is obviously very good) my concern is that she will be unlikely to find a role paying with the same benefits and therefore the "compensation".
Although wifette would probably just roll over and accept this, it doesn't appear to be very fair, and without wanting to make her life and work hell, wondered what could be done. there is no union, so everything would have to be negotiated by her.
What do we think peeps?
Now employer wants to move the work she does to East Europe, effectively meaning she is out of a role. They are now advising her that it is unlikely they will find her anything because she is part time term time.
They are suggesting she takes a pay off to leave, note they are not referring to it as redundancy, however although the terms of her contract stipulate a month for every year (which is obviously very good) my concern is that she will be unlikely to find a role paying with the same benefits and therefore the "compensation".
Although wifette would probably just roll over and accept this, it doesn't appear to be very fair, and without wanting to make her life and work hell, wondered what could be done. there is no union, so everything would have to be negotiated by her.
What do we think peeps?
07 December 2009, 11:46 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good question....and difficult to answer. She would rather not work I'm sure, but working does provide us with a small but not insignificant wage plus benefits such as private health care. I am an IT Contractor, so am lucky enough to be in the position to be able to cover that if push came to shove, however that money diverts cash from rainy day fund/savings/plan B.
Ultimately the writing is on the wall and if there is no role, there is no role, however being bullied out of it is a little difficult to take.
She did say that the person she spoke to today asked her if she could drop her term time and then it would be easier to find her something. I so need her to get this in writing.
Spen555 - that is not the issue, I'm sure they will give her that, what I don't like is having to accept it when no formal redundancy procedure is in place, and the fact is she is being "benched" due to her working arrangements.
Trout - Agreed, was hoping someone who had experience could impart some knowledge to see what the likely outcome would be. I think i now it but worth it all the same.
Ultimately the writing is on the wall and if there is no role, there is no role, however being bullied out of it is a little difficult to take.
She did say that the person she spoke to today asked her if she could drop her term time and then it would be easier to find her something. I so need her to get this in writing.
Spen555 - that is not the issue, I'm sure they will give her that, what I don't like is having to accept it when no formal redundancy procedure is in place, and the fact is she is being "benched" due to her working arrangements.
Trout - Agreed, was hoping someone who had experience could impart some knowledge to see what the likely outcome would be. I think i now it but worth it all the same.
08 December 2009, 09:57 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
i think the term used for this scenario is Constructive Dismissal
It is probably only worth engaging the services of a lawyer if the company she works for is large enough to take notice – and be able to pay the increased amount
(it is not an argument against getting a lawyer – but it is often pointless if she works for a relatively small company – where negotiation and the CAB would be a better option)
just my opiniion
It is probably only worth engaging the services of a lawyer if the company she works for is large enough to take notice – and be able to pay the increased amount
(it is not an argument against getting a lawyer – but it is often pointless if she works for a relatively small company – where negotiation and the CAB would be a better option)
just my opiniion
Trending Topics
08 December 2009, 10:05 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
i think the term used for this scenario is Constructive Dismissal
It is probably only worth engaging the services of a lawyer if the company she works for is large enough to take notice – and be able to pay the increased amount
(it is not an argument against getting a lawyer – but it is often pointless if she works for a relatively small company – where negotiation and the CAB would be a better option)
just my opiniion
It is probably only worth engaging the services of a lawyer if the company she works for is large enough to take notice – and be able to pay the increased amount
(it is not an argument against getting a lawyer – but it is often pointless if she works for a relatively small company – where negotiation and the CAB would be a better option)
just my opiniion
08 December 2009, 10:24 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what its worth I also think this is unfair in view of all the time she has spent doing this job. It seems as though profit and even greed is more important than loyalty to their own workforce. Sounds as though they are looking for the cheapest way to get rid of her too.
I very much regret this sort of change in attitudes to the workforce, it will eventually lead to a loss to the firm involved too, loyalty goes both ways and it is a mistake to destroy that in the end.
Les
I very much regret this sort of change in attitudes to the workforce, it will eventually lead to a loss to the firm involved too, loyalty goes both ways and it is a mistake to destroy that in the end.
Les
08 December 2009, 10:35 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DCI - That is what is on offer, the point being she doesn't want to go.
Leslie - Thanks, it would appear that this method is used widely. As she had good redundancy terms from the original Tupe transfer it is probably more expensive than most would be however we are talking around 10k. The job is worth more with the ongoing salary, benefits and pension.
Leslie - Thanks, it would appear that this method is used widely. As she had good redundancy terms from the original Tupe transfer it is probably more expensive than most would be however we are talking around 10k. The job is worth more with the ongoing salary, benefits and pension.
08 December 2009, 11:08 AM
#12
At the end of the day redundancy is the best option. She'll get 12mths pay for the 12yrs service and that is what she is entitled to. If they want rid of her they have to make her redundant..simple as!!
If not they have to sack her, and have to have a legitimate reason to otherwise it's unfair dismissal. It's only constructive dissmisal if they have reason to and they still have to follow a process the same as there is a process for them to follow when making employees redundant.
The fact they have offered her a deal to go without making her redundant is them trying to get around the legal process which is naughty and could get them into trouble if they insist on following that through.
I keep saying this to people....when it comes to making people redundant or getting rid of employees whichever way an employer chooses there is absolutely no love lost....it's just business and exactly the same way your wife should be looking at it.
Never mind 12yrs of service, and how could they treat her in this manner....unfortunately it's just the way it is.
Equally never mind lawyers as it's a waste of time until they actually do something wrong. Your wife should be saying to them that if they want rid of her they need to make her redundant. In which case she then has every right thereafter to sign on and at least keep having national insurance credits paid on her behalf, even if she isn't entitled to receiving dole money because of her redundancy payout.
If they offer her a golden handshake type payment that's worth more than statutory redundancy fair enough because then it's just an economic decision. Once she has a signed agreement to xxxxx payment upon resignation it's time to go.
If not they have to sack her, and have to have a legitimate reason to otherwise it's unfair dismissal. It's only constructive dissmisal if they have reason to and they still have to follow a process the same as there is a process for them to follow when making employees redundant.
The fact they have offered her a deal to go without making her redundant is them trying to get around the legal process which is naughty and could get them into trouble if they insist on following that through.
I keep saying this to people....when it comes to making people redundant or getting rid of employees whichever way an employer chooses there is absolutely no love lost....it's just business and exactly the same way your wife should be looking at it.
Never mind 12yrs of service, and how could they treat her in this manner....unfortunately it's just the way it is.
Equally never mind lawyers as it's a waste of time until they actually do something wrong. Your wife should be saying to them that if they want rid of her they need to make her redundant. In which case she then has every right thereafter to sign on and at least keep having national insurance credits paid on her behalf, even if she isn't entitled to receiving dole money because of her redundancy payout.
If they offer her a golden handshake type payment that's worth more than statutory redundancy fair enough because then it's just an economic decision. Once she has a signed agreement to xxxxx payment upon resignation it's time to go.
08 December 2009, 12:06 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day redundancy is the best option. She'll get 12mths pay for the 12yrs service and that is what she is entitled to. If they want rid of her they have to make her redundant..simple as!!
If not they have to sack her, and have to have a legitimate reason to otherwise it's unfair dismissal. It's only constructive dissmisal if they have reason to and they still have to follow a process the same as there is a process for them to follow when making employees redundant.
The fact they have offered her a deal to go without making her redundant is them trying to get around the legal process which is naughty and could get them into trouble if they insist on following that through.
I keep saying this to people....when it comes to making people redundant or getting rid of employees whichever way an employer chooses there is absolutely no love lost....it's just business and exactly the same way your wife should be looking at it.
Never mind 12yrs of service, and how could they treat her in this manner....unfortunately it's just the way it is.
Equally never mind lawyers as it's a waste of time until they actually do something wrong. Your wife should be saying to them that if they want rid of her they need to make her redundant. In which case she then has every right thereafter to sign on and at least keep having national insurance credits paid on her behalf, even if she isn't entitled to receiving dole money because of her redundancy payout.
If they offer her a golden handshake type payment that's worth more than statutory redundancy fair enough because then it's just an economic decision. Once she has a signed agreement to xxxxx payment upon resignation it's time to go.
If not they have to sack her, and have to have a legitimate reason to otherwise it's unfair dismissal. It's only constructive dissmisal if they have reason to and they still have to follow a process the same as there is a process for them to follow when making employees redundant.
The fact they have offered her a deal to go without making her redundant is them trying to get around the legal process which is naughty and could get them into trouble if they insist on following that through.
I keep saying this to people....when it comes to making people redundant or getting rid of employees whichever way an employer chooses there is absolutely no love lost....it's just business and exactly the same way your wife should be looking at it.
Never mind 12yrs of service, and how could they treat her in this manner....unfortunately it's just the way it is.
Equally never mind lawyers as it's a waste of time until they actually do something wrong. Your wife should be saying to them that if they want rid of her they need to make her redundant. In which case she then has every right thereafter to sign on and at least keep having national insurance credits paid on her behalf, even if she isn't entitled to receiving dole money because of her redundancy payout.
If they offer her a golden handshake type payment that's worth more than statutory redundancy fair enough because then it's just an economic decision. Once she has a signed agreement to xxxxx payment upon resignation it's time to go.
This is of course exactly what I meant in my post and that is a statement which cannot be justified morally or on the basis of fair play.
It is a "dog eat dog" attitude and signifies the loss of trust between employers and their workforce.
Les
08 December 2009, 01:04 PM
#15
As fas as her employer and many other employers are concerned, specially smaller less well known/unknown companies, business is business and morals and fair play go out the window. When it comes to redundancy stage most of them don't really care about their reputation and many either eventually shut down, leave UK shores or start up under another banner, so as unfair as we all might feel this is it's just the way it is.
Bigger companies that have a reputation to uphold generally treat their employees better and certainly more fairly. The last thing they want is an ex-employee taking them to court for unfair dismissal because after the employee has gone it's likely the employer still has to go about their business longer term. This is something that would more than likely find it's way into printed/online major media and the public eye with the potential of badly tarnishing their reputation. Not something they want when they still have to carry on in business. Their customers don't want to be associated with a supplier that has a bad name for whatever reason.
I know it sounds harsh but that's reality. I sincerely wish her the best for the future. If she is talanted and does a good job she won't be unemployed for long, even during this awful recession.
I've been in recruitment for 20yrs and this is the way it's always been. I don't see any reason why it will ever change so the best thing to do is learn to live with it and play the system, and make the best of a bad situation.
Bigger companies that have a reputation to uphold generally treat their employees better and certainly more fairly. The last thing they want is an ex-employee taking them to court for unfair dismissal because after the employee has gone it's likely the employer still has to go about their business longer term. This is something that would more than likely find it's way into printed/online major media and the public eye with the potential of badly tarnishing their reputation. Not something they want when they still have to carry on in business. Their customers don't want to be associated with a supplier that has a bad name for whatever reason.
I know it sounds harsh but that's reality. I sincerely wish her the best for the future. If she is talanted and does a good job she won't be unemployed for long, even during this awful recession.
I've been in recruitment for 20yrs and this is the way it's always been. I don't see any reason why it will ever change so the best thing to do is learn to live with it and play the system, and make the best of a bad situation.
09 December 2009, 02:09 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
going through redundancy at the moment, my advice is got to the AB as soon as possible as it takes a long time to get into their system also worth checking if the CAB your going to has an employment lawyer working there or on their referral list as some dont so all you get is an advise reading from a script.
Do get all offers from her company in writing upfront or otherwise they have a habit of not being honoured and dont forget that at the moment jobs are hard to find and wages have dropped alot so your wife might have to take a big pay cut obviously if the package by her current company can help soften the blow that will help you.
Do get all offers from her company in writing upfront or otherwise they have a habit of not being honoured and dont forget that at the moment jobs are hard to find and wages have dropped alot so your wife might have to take a big pay cut obviously if the package by her current company can help soften the blow that will help you.
09 December 2009, 12:18 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As fas as her employer and many other employers are concerned, specially smaller less well known/unknown companies, business is business and morals and fair play go out the window. When it comes to redundancy stage most of them don't really care about their reputation and many either eventually shut down, leave UK shores or start up under another banner, so as unfair as we all might feel this is it's just the way it is.
Bigger companies that have a reputation to uphold generally treat their employees better and certainly more fairly. The last thing they want is an ex-employee taking them to court for unfair dismissal because after the employee has gone it's likely the employer still has to go about their business longer term. This is something that would more than likely find it's way into printed/online major media and the public eye with the potential of badly tarnishing their reputation. Not something they want when they still have to carry on in business. Their customers don't want to be associated with a supplier that has a bad name for whatever reason.
I know it sounds harsh but that's reality. I sincerely wish her the best for the future. If she is talanted and does a good job she won't be unemployed for long, even during this awful recession.
I've been in recruitment for 20yrs and this is the way it's always been. I don't see any reason why it will ever change so the best thing to do is learn to live with it and play the system, and make the best of a bad situation.
Bigger companies that have a reputation to uphold generally treat their employees better and certainly more fairly. The last thing they want is an ex-employee taking them to court for unfair dismissal because after the employee has gone it's likely the employer still has to go about their business longer term. This is something that would more than likely find it's way into printed/online major media and the public eye with the potential of badly tarnishing their reputation. Not something they want when they still have to carry on in business. Their customers don't want to be associated with a supplier that has a bad name for whatever reason.
I know it sounds harsh but that's reality. I sincerely wish her the best for the future. If she is talanted and does a good job she won't be unemployed for long, even during this awful recession.
I've been in recruitment for 20yrs and this is the way it's always been. I don't see any reason why it will ever change so the best thing to do is learn to live with it and play the system, and make the best of a bad situation.
Les
09 December 2009, 12:59 PM
#18
I think if you read my posts properly you'll see i'm actually on the side of those being made redundant. The truth unfortunately is hard and cannot be avoided so there's no point being softly softly because these days it really is dog eat dog out there and you should be fully aware of the situation, warts and all.
I am a champion of fair play and very against the way some companies treat their employees, specially during tough times and when redundancy is flavour of the month. I wouldn't have been in recruitment for the last 20 years if i didn't feel this way.
My partner has been in this very same situation at her last employer and currently isn't sure whats happening with her current employer or even if she still has a job 1st qtr of next year so i do sympathise, many of us are in exactly the same boat.
P.S. It has always been this way....that's human nature when dealing with business survival matters. There's no such thing as fair play in business and it would be naive of you to think otherwise.
I firmly believe all companies should respect their employees and treat them with empathy, understanding and a genuine desire to help make the best of a bad situation during these very tough times. Unfortunately some don't and that's the long and the short of it. Deal with it and move on.
I am a champion of fair play and very against the way some companies treat their employees, specially during tough times and when redundancy is flavour of the month. I wouldn't have been in recruitment for the last 20 years if i didn't feel this way.
My partner has been in this very same situation at her last employer and currently isn't sure whats happening with her current employer or even if she still has a job 1st qtr of next year so i do sympathise, many of us are in exactly the same boat.
P.S. It has always been this way....that's human nature when dealing with business survival matters. There's no such thing as fair play in business and it would be naive of you to think otherwise.
I firmly believe all companies should respect their employees and treat them with empathy, understanding and a genuine desire to help make the best of a bad situation during these very tough times. Unfortunately some don't and that's the long and the short of it. Deal with it and move on.
09 December 2009, 01:30 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think if you read my posts properly you'll see i'm actually on the side of those being made redundant. The truth unfortunately is hard and cannot be avoided so there's no point being softly softly because these days it really is dog eat dog out there and you should be fully aware of the situation, warts and all.
I am a champion of fair play and very against the way some companies treat their employees, specially during tough times and when redundancy is flavour of the month. I wouldn't have been in recruitment for the last 20 years if i didn't feel this way.
My partner has been in this very same situation at her last employer and currently isn't sure whats happening with her current employer or even if she still has a job 1st qtr of next year so i do sympathise, many of us are in exactly the same boat.
P.S. It has always been this way....that's human nature when dealing with business survival matters. There's no such thing as fair play in business and it would be naive of you to think otherwise.
I firmly believe all companies should respect their employees and treat them with empathy, understanding and a genuine desire to help make the best of a bad situation during these very tough times. Unfortunately some don't and that's the long and the short of it. Deal with it and move on.
I am a champion of fair play and very against the way some companies treat their employees, specially during tough times and when redundancy is flavour of the month. I wouldn't have been in recruitment for the last 20 years if i didn't feel this way.
My partner has been in this very same situation at her last employer and currently isn't sure whats happening with her current employer or even if she still has a job 1st qtr of next year so i do sympathise, many of us are in exactly the same boat.
P.S. It has always been this way....that's human nature when dealing with business survival matters. There's no such thing as fair play in business and it would be naive of you to think otherwise.
I firmly believe all companies should respect their employees and treat them with empathy, understanding and a genuine desire to help make the best of a bad situation during these very tough times. Unfortunately some don't and that's the long and the short of it. Deal with it and move on.
I did read them carefully. I am glad that you are on the side of fair play after all. It is a shame that business has moved so far in that direction for "business reasons" and I can only assume the it is greed as well as survival which is the basis of all that.
It must be hard for you to that job then when you are against that sort of principle.
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 09 December 2009 at 01:32 PM.
09 December 2009, 01:45 PM
#20
Over the last 20years working in the electronics and software industry i've forged very strong and long lasting relationships with reputable clients, and some no longer with us. I've always been choosy about who i deal with and that's stood me in good stead all these years.
Luckily and with few exceptions my clients have come to me during recessions and asked me to help with redundancy outsourcing and placing out employees. I do what i can. It's employers like these that play fair when it comes to redundancy and have given me the most pleasure to deal with over the years. I have also dealt with a few that surprised even me, and subsequently i would never deal with ever again.
You can't win them all!!...Unfortunately.
Luckily and with few exceptions my clients have come to me during recessions and asked me to help with redundancy outsourcing and placing out employees. I do what i can. It's employers like these that play fair when it comes to redundancy and have given me the most pleasure to deal with over the years. I have also dealt with a few that surprised even me, and subsequently i would never deal with ever again.
You can't win them all!!...Unfortunately.
09 December 2009, 03:41 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Matt,
Her role is redundant. Many employers will offer a leaving package rather than calling it redundancy because it looks better on both sides. If all employees accept such terms rather than being made redundant it negates the requirement to consult.
The downside is to make sure that the terms don't create a larger tax liability than a formal redundancy payment would as redundancy is tax free up to an amount.
If they had offered her a job in eastern europe in the knowledge that she would leave, then that would be constructive dismissal, however what they have done is entirely fair.
If she gets 12 months pay, classed as redundancy to mitigate tax, then that would be a very fair deal under the circumstances.
Statutory redundancy would be 12 weeks (with a multiplier depending on her age) - much less than what the offer is.
Her role is redundant. Many employers will offer a leaving package rather than calling it redundancy because it looks better on both sides. If all employees accept such terms rather than being made redundant it negates the requirement to consult.
The downside is to make sure that the terms don't create a larger tax liability than a formal redundancy payment would as redundancy is tax free up to an amount.
If they had offered her a job in eastern europe in the knowledge that she would leave, then that would be constructive dismissal, however what they have done is entirely fair.
If she gets 12 months pay, classed as redundancy to mitigate tax, then that would be a very fair deal under the circumstances.
Statutory redundancy would be 12 weeks (with a multiplier depending on her age) - much less than what the offer is.
Last edited by Devildog; 09 December 2009 at 03:43 PM.
09 December 2009, 04:55 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get what you are saying DD, however is the role really redundant?. Rather they are moving it to a place where it is cheaper and then hiring someone else to do it. nothing she can do about it, it's just the way it is. Grrr.
Most employees accept it as the way it is explained you don't have a choice so what are they to do?
Most employees accept it as the way it is explained you don't have a choice so what are they to do?
09 December 2009, 05:01 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Matt, the role is moving to Eastern Europe, so yes, as far as your wife is concerned the role at her place of work is redundant.
She could quite correctly ask for a transfer to Eastern Europe, but I'm guessing she doesn't want to do that?
No, they don't have a choice, but it is an employers entitlement to operate where it choses to do so. I appreciate that it sucks, but the upside is she's getting a very good deal.
She could quite correctly ask for a transfer to Eastern Europe, but I'm guessing she doesn't want to do that?
No, they don't have a choice, but it is an employers entitlement to operate where it choses to do so. I appreciate that it sucks, but the upside is she's getting a very good deal.
10 December 2009, 12:15 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sorry i disagree.
Her job is being given to somebody the management are recruiting to replace her because they will do the job for less money.
The reason this is being treated as acceptable is because the person is in Eastern Europe not in the same office but the job isnt being made redundant she is just being replaced by cheaper labour.
Part of the reason that person can work for less is they dont have the high taxation we have in the UK and the cost of living in general will be cheaper in eastern europe.
Your wife can ask for redeployment most good employers will try to do this if they have the flexability. These are the sorts of things a union would really help with!
I suggest she gets some independent advice from CAB as soon as possible but i think you will be disappointed be the actual rights you have.
Her job is being given to somebody the management are recruiting to replace her because they will do the job for less money.
The reason this is being treated as acceptable is because the person is in Eastern Europe not in the same office but the job isnt being made redundant she is just being replaced by cheaper labour.
Part of the reason that person can work for less is they dont have the high taxation we have in the UK and the cost of living in general will be cheaper in eastern europe.
Your wife can ask for redeployment most good employers will try to do this if they have the flexability. These are the sorts of things a union would really help with!
I suggest she gets some independent advice from CAB as soon as possible but i think you will be disappointed be the actual rights you have.
10 December 2009, 11:54 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over the last 20years working in the electronics and software industry i've forged very strong and long lasting relationships with reputable clients, and some no longer with us. I've always been choosy about who i deal with and that's stood me in good stead all these years.
Luckily and with few exceptions my clients have come to me during recessions and asked me to help with redundancy outsourcing and placing out employees. I do what i can. It's employers like these that play fair when it comes to redundancy and have given me the most pleasure to deal with over the years. I have also dealt with a few that surprised even me, and subsequently i would never deal with ever again.
You can't win them all!!...Unfortunately.
Luckily and with few exceptions my clients have come to me during recessions and asked me to help with redundancy outsourcing and placing out employees. I do what i can. It's employers like these that play fair when it comes to redundancy and have given me the most pleasure to deal with over the years. I have also dealt with a few that surprised even me, and subsequently i would never deal with ever again.
You can't win them all!!...Unfortunately.
Les
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
aaron_ions
General Technical
1
17 September 2015 10:42 AM