News2 mins ago
Lamb Seeks Red Riding Hood without large toothed Nanny
I have spent hours on the CAB web-site (what a farce) which proved beyond question that they spend more on incredibly complicated daft software than anything else. My boss gave me a doubtful redundancy for Xmas and I would like to consult an honest employment lawyer to see if it is worth the scant funds in my possession to pursue it. I have no job and one months salary so the funds are a bit scarce . Not a good time to be jobless although even at 60 I am still sensible, useful and people friendly. East Midlands CAB open for 3 hours twice a week and they are full up after an hour. Not much chance there.
Any advice or suggestions (that I am not too old for) would be most welcome as I believe that an astute employment lawyer might be able to assess the situation without skinning me alive financially and I do not want to chase any rainbows of "Compensation Claims" so no greedy motives please. Bet that there lots of me out there .
Any advice or suggestions (that I am not too old for) would be most welcome as I believe that an astute employment lawyer might be able to assess the situation without skinning me alive financially and I do not want to chase any rainbows of "Compensation Claims" so no greedy motives please. Bet that there lots of me out there .
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rutineli. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If you can summarise the key points on here I'm sure buildersmate and others will give you some good advice on whether/how best to pursue this.
We need to know things like how long have you worked there, how many redundancies were made, rationale for redundancies, was a procedure followed, was there consultation, how were selections made, what notice were you given and what severance terms are there (statututory or enhanced). Can you also explain why you feel it is 'doubtful' and challengable.
Regards
We need to know things like how long have you worked there, how many redundancies were made, rationale for redundancies, was a procedure followed, was there consultation, how were selections made, what notice were you given and what severance terms are there (statututory or enhanced). Can you also explain why you feel it is 'doubtful' and challengable.
Regards
We were given written notice and we were asked to make suggestions which would make our departments more efficient and cheaper. I submitted a plan for significant cost cutting in writing during the notice period after consultation with the staff in my department.
At the end of the 28 day period I was told that although my suggestions had been considered they wished to split the working of my department into two distinct, brand led entities, one of which would run from a different site and my job as departmental Manager was no longer relevant.
I was told that I would be offered any vacancy that arose internally as a result of the changes. I was told that in total 10 people were to be made redundannt but only two at my grade.
In the time since then I have received written details of an internal vacancy which is an exact descripyion of my former position other than that it carries the job title of Administrator rather than Manager. I expressed interest in writing.
The Job that was offered to me as "Administrator" was at a 60% cut in wage band (approx) but the function described was to "Manage" "Coordinat" " Liaise" etc. etc. all of the functions that I have performed successfully over a period of four full years.
In my proposals to reduce the cost of the departmental wages I had budgeted for a cut of approx 30% to 40% .
I cannot see any justification for the redundancy since my knowledge of the running of the company assures me that the function that is to be moved to the alternative location will require a well-paid professional to cover the role in any way that is close to the level of expertise with which I have handled it although Directoral interference has caused significant negative court judgements over the years.
I believe that the process is entirely personal and not based upon any professional criteria other than those forced upon me by my line
At the end of the 28 day period I was told that although my suggestions had been considered they wished to split the working of my department into two distinct, brand led entities, one of which would run from a different site and my job as departmental Manager was no longer relevant.
I was told that I would be offered any vacancy that arose internally as a result of the changes. I was told that in total 10 people were to be made redundannt but only two at my grade.
In the time since then I have received written details of an internal vacancy which is an exact descripyion of my former position other than that it carries the job title of Administrator rather than Manager. I expressed interest in writing.
The Job that was offered to me as "Administrator" was at a 60% cut in wage band (approx) but the function described was to "Manage" "Coordinat" " Liaise" etc. etc. all of the functions that I have performed successfully over a period of four full years.
In my proposals to reduce the cost of the departmental wages I had budgeted for a cut of approx 30% to 40% .
I cannot see any justification for the redundancy since my knowledge of the running of the company assures me that the function that is to be moved to the alternative location will require a well-paid professional to cover the role in any way that is close to the level of expertise with which I have handled it although Directoral interference has caused significant negative court judgements over the years.
I believe that the process is entirely personal and not based upon any professional criteria other than those forced upon me by my line
I was made redundant in similar circumstances and the circumstances you describe see quite typical of the way these things happen. Based on what you have said i doubt you would be able to make strong case. If the company believes it can recruit at a significantly lower salary and can demonstate the role is sufficiently different from yours (which based on the salary I think they can do), then your options are to apply at the lower grade or accept redundancy.
We'll wait and see what Ethel and buildersmate say but I'm afraid i don't hold out much hope if the agreed procedures have been followed. I hope for your sake I'm wrong.
We'll wait and see what Ethel and buildersmate say but I'm afraid i don't hold out much hope if the agreed procedures have been followed. I hope for your sake I'm wrong.
As I read that lot, the company no longer has need of a manager (per se) in your role, and therefore your redundancy is lawful. However, you can read up on the rules for yourself by following the various links from here:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Redunda ncyAndLeavingYourJob/DG_10026616
That page also tells you about the ACAS helpline. It can take ages to get through but it may well be worth the wait because it's probably the best source of free information available. (Unlike the CAB, you'll be speaking directly to a specialist).
Chris
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Redunda ncyAndLeavingYourJob/DG_10026616
That page also tells you about the ACAS helpline. It can take ages to get through but it may well be worth the wait because it's probably the best source of free information available. (Unlike the CAB, you'll be speaking directly to a specialist).
Chris
Buenchico, thank you. I only considered making any type of objection after first speaking to somebody on the ACAS helpline as it was their suggestion that I should at least take the matter a step further on and I wrote to the company to inform them that such was the case. Their reaction however was to simply re-state the status quo which I did not find convincing.
The basis of my case being that if they wish to reduce their outgoinngs then I have very reasonably offered rhat opporunity to them by a prportionate amount.
My expertise is is well honed and unless they have a source of significant increased benefit in mind then I fail to note their motivation. I suspect an alternative agenda .
I am committed to the company and to my role therein and go no wish to keep looking over my shoulder
The basis of my case being that if they wish to reduce their outgoinngs then I have very reasonably offered rhat opporunity to them by a prportionate amount.
My expertise is is well honed and unless they have a source of significant increased benefit in mind then I fail to note their motivation. I suspect an alternative agenda .
I am committed to the company and to my role therein and go no wish to keep looking over my shoulder
Sadly, I think you are swimming against the tide. They have considered your proposed savings and have decided to save a chunk of your salary and may also take on board some of the other ideas for savings that you and colleagues came up with. This is a common scenario and many of my colleagues and I who were made redundant firmly believed we should be kept on, but ultimately it'sa buisness decision. From what you say then I cannot see grounds for tehd ecision being unlawful- it may not be the right business decision but it's the company's preferred course of action and it has the right to make that tough decision.
Have you got a union and if so would they support you?
I don't doubt you are a very loyal and proud employee who believes he is an asset to the company- many others will feels the same too, I know I did.
But if the company doesn't want you maybe it's time to move on- take the redundancy money and maybe retire or do something different for a few years. It's only worth fighting if the procedure was not followed or was not lawful.
Sorry if it's not the answer you are looking for.
Have you got a union and if so would they support you?
I don't doubt you are a very loyal and proud employee who believes he is an asset to the company- many others will feels the same too, I know I did.
But if the company doesn't want you maybe it's time to move on- take the redundancy money and maybe retire or do something different for a few years. It's only worth fighting if the procedure was not followed or was not lawful.
Sorry if it's not the answer you are looking for.
Good answers from Factor and Buenchico, I thought, so only limited scope for me to add more.
Having had the company do the deed, your only practical potential option now would be to go for unfair dismissal. I suspect this is why the business is not interested in expanding further on what has been said to you - it doesn't benefit them, but it might benefit you.
An important point is that tribunals do not generally question the business decision to dismiss employees due to a reduction in work. The definition in the Employment Rights Act is very narrow and says that the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to ................ that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind........... has ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish (parts of the Act only are quoted).
Sorry, but I think you are onto a non-starter to claim that the company is not being reasonable by considering your proposals more seriously. I can't see that there is any obligation on the company to do this.
Regarding the redundancy itself, there are three steps the company must follow. Bear in mind that far more redundancies are found to be unfair because the company failed to follow the correct process than the reasons in the first place. The steps are consult, selection and consideration of suitable alternative employment.
The first step should be in writing, explain the brief reasons, explain the likely numbers and explain the timescale. Then individual meetings should occur (TU consultation occurs if collective bargaining rights exist). It seems to have done this.
The second step is ensuring that objective but simple criteria are used to decide.
[continued]
Having had the company do the deed, your only practical potential option now would be to go for unfair dismissal. I suspect this is why the business is not interested in expanding further on what has been said to you - it doesn't benefit them, but it might benefit you.
An important point is that tribunals do not generally question the business decision to dismiss employees due to a reduction in work. The definition in the Employment Rights Act is very narrow and says that the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to ................ that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind........... has ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish (parts of the Act only are quoted).
Sorry, but I think you are onto a non-starter to claim that the company is not being reasonable by considering your proposals more seriously. I can't see that there is any obligation on the company to do this.
Regarding the redundancy itself, there are three steps the company must follow. Bear in mind that far more redundancies are found to be unfair because the company failed to follow the correct process than the reasons in the first place. The steps are consult, selection and consideration of suitable alternative employment.
The first step should be in writing, explain the brief reasons, explain the likely numbers and explain the timescale. Then individual meetings should occur (TU consultation occurs if collective bargaining rights exist). It seems to have done this.
The second step is ensuring that objective but simple criteria are used to decide.
[continued]
The third step, they seem to have followed. The only chink (IMHO) is that the alternative offered might be considered to be 'unsuitable'. There is some case law about this - a headmaster of many years was offered a job within a pool of teachers with his pay frozen - but the drop in status was found to be unsuitable (Taylor v. Kent County Council (1969, QB560). It could be argued that the same happened to you.
An laternative creative strategy (that I accept may seem unpalatible just now) is to bite the bullet and do the job whilst you bide your time and find an alternative. It is certainly true that it is easier to find work when one is in work. You have four years service and seem to have got four weeks pay (you should by the way have had your notice period in money from the date of redundancy plus the statutory redundancy as a minimum - or they may have asked you to work your notice - you may have got more than this). Only you can work out how long this money will last, versus the prospect of being out of work for a while. One might be lucky but on the black side it might take as long as 3-5 months to get back into work. You could work out the maths.
Just checking they calculated the money correctly - if they paid you money in lieu of notice it should have been paid gross with no deductions. This, BTW, means you cannot start to claim JSA until the end of the notice period but it is worth registering because your NI contribution will be made up. Likewise redundancy payments are gross (up to �30k).
Hope that helps a bit.
An laternative creative strategy (that I accept may seem unpalatible just now) is to bite the bullet and do the job whilst you bide your time and find an alternative. It is certainly true that it is easier to find work when one is in work. You have four years service and seem to have got four weeks pay (you should by the way have had your notice period in money from the date of redundancy plus the statutory redundancy as a minimum - or they may have asked you to work your notice - you may have got more than this). Only you can work out how long this money will last, versus the prospect of being out of work for a while. One might be lucky but on the black side it might take as long as 3-5 months to get back into work. You could work out the maths.
Just checking they calculated the money correctly - if they paid you money in lieu of notice it should have been paid gross with no deductions. This, BTW, means you cannot start to claim JSA until the end of the notice period but it is worth registering because your NI contribution will be made up. Likewise redundancy payments are gross (up to �30k).
Hope that helps a bit.
I thank you for your opinions and admit that they do carry much common sense . Having thought about the issues again overnight in some detail, it is apparent to me that your suggestions do carry significant weight.
The question that was put to ACAS was to enquire as to whether the role was actualy redundant which as you will all be aware is the final arbiter of the issue and insofar as the advertised job carries the identical role including the function to "Manage" set down in three separate places it would appear to be worth enquiring if the company are simply trying to downgrade the role for a much lower remuneration while "unfairly" declaring to me that the role has changed, albeit very temporarily through the "off-peak" season.
If thereafter the the role must revert to it's former location at a lower wage, which I believe it must in order to function efficiently, then therein lies the foundation of my enquiry as noted by ACAS already and which I will put to an employment specialist.
The ideas of either "retiring "or " spending a few years doing something else" are a gift from the lazy minded victims of such ploys to the greedy employers, from whom these regulations are intended as a protection.
The question that was put to ACAS was to enquire as to whether the role was actualy redundant which as you will all be aware is the final arbiter of the issue and insofar as the advertised job carries the identical role including the function to "Manage" set down in three separate places it would appear to be worth enquiring if the company are simply trying to downgrade the role for a much lower remuneration while "unfairly" declaring to me that the role has changed, albeit very temporarily through the "off-peak" season.
If thereafter the the role must revert to it's former location at a lower wage, which I believe it must in order to function efficiently, then therein lies the foundation of my enquiry as noted by ACAS already and which I will put to an employment specialist.
The ideas of either "retiring "or " spending a few years doing something else" are a gift from the lazy minded victims of such ploys to the greedy employers, from whom these regulations are intended as a protection.
I know many people who reluctantly took redundancy in their late 50s, felt rejected, struggled to find work.... and then realised the joys of retirement plus some occasional voluntary or consultancy work. Maybe they were fortunate to have reasonable savings and pensions. I don't regard them as lazy minded victims.
Buildersmate I have taken your comments on board and had already given the company written notice of my intention to apply for the job that is on offer at 40% of my salary since as you have quite rightly commented it is much easier to shop the jobs market from a position of employment and it may well take some considerable time for a bloke of my age to secure even a significantly lower paid job and I have no wish to deplete my savings any further than necessary.
Naturally I would not wish to continue with any action agasinst the company for which I had an intention or an opportunity to work.
Nonetheless it is worth maintaniong an awareness of all of the issues.
Your comments regarding the non-taxable nature of unworked notice payments are of interest since I am paid a month in arrears and therefore had one months salary owed to me when made redundant which was correctly taxed at the normal rate. and was paid at the end of the month. (For he month of November).
I have not yet been paid the month unworked notice to take me to 02/01/09 which I understood from your message, should be paid to me at the end of December tax exempt (???)
The redundancy payment which roughly equates to one month's salary would follow that and would (they said "at the grace of the company, but I suspect by legal statute" ) be paid to me tax exempt but I am unclear as to when.
Therefore, I believe that I am correct in believing that neither my NMovember Salary nor my Redundancy payment can be joined to my tax free one month in lieu of notice (subject to the holiday dispute)
I was also told that the remianing nine day portion of my accrued holiday pay must be taken as a part of my unpaid notice whereas I had been unable to take it at will because my line Manager wanted the same dates, hence it remained untaken but would otherwise have been used already. Any suggestions?
Naturally I would not wish to continue with any action agasinst the company for which I had an intention or an opportunity to work.
Nonetheless it is worth maintaniong an awareness of all of the issues.
Your comments regarding the non-taxable nature of unworked notice payments are of interest since I am paid a month in arrears and therefore had one months salary owed to me when made redundant which was correctly taxed at the normal rate. and was paid at the end of the month. (For he month of November).
I have not yet been paid the month unworked notice to take me to 02/01/09 which I understood from your message, should be paid to me at the end of December tax exempt (???)
The redundancy payment which roughly equates to one month's salary would follow that and would (they said "at the grace of the company, but I suspect by legal statute" ) be paid to me tax exempt but I am unclear as to when.
Therefore, I believe that I am correct in believing that neither my NMovember Salary nor my Redundancy payment can be joined to my tax free one month in lieu of notice (subject to the holiday dispute)
I was also told that the remianing nine day portion of my accrued holiday pay must be taken as a part of my unpaid notice whereas I had been unable to take it at will because my line Manager wanted the same dates, hence it remained untaken but would otherwise have been used already. Any suggestions?
factor 30); please accept my most sincere and genuine apologies for the apparent meaning of my post. I am not of a nature to make any such suggestiojns and can only put it down to my overstresssed state of mind in the current circumstances that would have allowed me to permit any such apparent rudeness to escape my attention . I really did not mean to say that the way that it sounded.
I am already a member and vounteer of three separate chaitable groups and their activities are the joy of my life and I derive the greatest pleasure from giving of my time and service.
Every time I re-read that post I wince and bite my lip, so once again, so, finally, please accept my apologies.
Very Merry Christmas Wishes from - rutineli.
I am already a member and vounteer of three separate chaitable groups and their activities are the joy of my life and I derive the greatest pleasure from giving of my time and service.
Every time I re-read that post I wince and bite my lip, so once again, so, finally, please accept my apologies.
Very Merry Christmas Wishes from - rutineli.
That's absolutely right, F30, - and perhaps I should have made this clear - taking on a 'suitable alternative role' is an option to taking redundancy. You will not get both.
However you are legally entitled to a trial period of four calendar weeks in the 'new' job. This is for you to assess the job and if you resign within that time you are legally in the same position as if you had been offered the job but declined it from the outset.
However you need to be aware that if you decline an alternative position, whether during the trial period or whether at the outset when first offered you are still entitled to redundancy unless two criteria apply. These are:
The alternative employment was suitable
Your declining it was unreasonable.
This is deep in legal territory and I am not giving you specific advice, however, suitability is assessed based on whether the package of pay, hours, role/responsibilities, duties is broadly similar. The pay can be a bit less, but what you are being offered sounds too far less - if push came to shove at an ET.
It doesn't stop you trying it out though, at no (apparent) disadvantage to yourself - to bide for time.
Try and get to the CAB to get referred to a solicitor for 30 minutes of free advice, if you can get it.
At least you know something of the basic questions to ask an expert.
However you are legally entitled to a trial period of four calendar weeks in the 'new' job. This is for you to assess the job and if you resign within that time you are legally in the same position as if you had been offered the job but declined it from the outset.
However you need to be aware that if you decline an alternative position, whether during the trial period or whether at the outset when first offered you are still entitled to redundancy unless two criteria apply. These are:
The alternative employment was suitable
Your declining it was unreasonable.
This is deep in legal territory and I am not giving you specific advice, however, suitability is assessed based on whether the package of pay, hours, role/responsibilities, duties is broadly similar. The pay can be a bit less, but what you are being offered sounds too far less - if push came to shove at an ET.
It doesn't stop you trying it out though, at no (apparent) disadvantage to yourself - to bide for time.
Try and get to the CAB to get referred to a solicitor for 30 minutes of free advice, if you can get it.
At least you know something of the basic questions to ask an expert.
It worries me slightly that you say that you have written to the company telling them in effect that you are considering legal action ('taking the matter a step further'). But then you say that you are going to apply for an alternative position within the company. I just can't see that threatening the company with legal action will help you get a job there. Given the choice between one worker and another where one is threatening to sue you, I know which one as an employer I would choose.
I think maybe it would have been better to see how the job application went first before telling the company you were considering 'taking matters further'.
I think maybe it would have been better to see how the job application went first before telling the company you were considering 'taking matters further'.
builders mate factor 30 and twenty 20, I have to admit to having been somewhat shocked at the extent to which you have rewritten what I have actually posted in my enquiry in that I have not mentioned that I had any intention of suing the company but refer to carriftying the actual description of the role that is being proposed and to question whether the role was in fact being made redundant which as I am sure that you are all aware is the basis for reduncdancy.
Iam rather dissappointed to note that the majority of repondents have placed their own interpretation upon what I have written and have not in fact dealt witht he issues as I have presented them, but rather with the issues thatthey believe they have a ready-made answer for.
You have collectively ignored the oft repeated information that it was at the suggestion ofthe ACAS advisor that I decided to sek for a clearer definition of the role that is being offered instead of my current position .
I have done no more that to tell the company that I am "expressing Interest" in order to be prepared to explolore the aplication further although you have collecctively decided that I have applioed for the job and threatened the company with legal action.
I would be obliged to question your suiotability for any rolwe in a company that I was running based upon you asssimilation of the information offered and the course of action devised.
Iam rather dissappointed to note that the majority of repondents have placed their own interpretation upon what I have written and have not in fact dealt witht he issues as I have presented them, but rather with the issues thatthey believe they have a ready-made answer for.
You have collectively ignored the oft repeated information that it was at the suggestion ofthe ACAS advisor that I decided to sek for a clearer definition of the role that is being offered instead of my current position .
I have done no more that to tell the company that I am "expressing Interest" in order to be prepared to explolore the aplication further although you have collecctively decided that I have applioed for the job and threatened the company with legal action.
I would be obliged to question your suiotability for any rolwe in a company that I was running based upon you asssimilation of the information offered and the course of action devised.
builders mate factor 30 and twenty 20, I have to admit to having been somewhat shocked at the extent to which you have rewritten what I have actually posted in my enquiry in that I have not mentioned that I had any intention of suing the company but refer to carriftying the actual description of the role that is being proposed and to question whether the role was in fact being made redundant which as I am sure that you are all aware is the basis for reduncdancy.
Iam rather dissappointed to note that the majority of repondents have placed their own interpretation upon what I have written and have not in fact dealt witht he issues as I have presented them, but rather with the issues thatthey believe they have a ready-made answer for.
You have collectively ignored the oft repeated information that it was at the suggestion ofthe ACAS advisor that I decided to seek for a clearer definition of the role that is being offered instead of my current position .
I have done no more than to tell the company that I am "expressing Interest" in order to be prepared to explore the possibility of future application (since in rhe words of buildersmate a 60% salary reduction cannot be considered reasonable ) aplication further although you have collecctively decided that I have applioed for the job and threatened the company with legal action action although I have as yet been unable to trace the exact source of your collective certainty..
Iam rather dissappointed to note that the majority of repondents have placed their own interpretation upon what I have written and have not in fact dealt witht he issues as I have presented them, but rather with the issues thatthey believe they have a ready-made answer for.
You have collectively ignored the oft repeated information that it was at the suggestion ofthe ACAS advisor that I decided to seek for a clearer definition of the role that is being offered instead of my current position .
I have done no more than to tell the company that I am "expressing Interest" in order to be prepared to explore the possibility of future application (since in rhe words of buildersmate a 60% salary reduction cannot be considered reasonable ) aplication further although you have collecctively decided that I have applioed for the job and threatened the company with legal action action although I have as yet been unable to trace the exact source of your collective certainty..
I'm sorry you think that we have collectively misrepresented the situation. I am not aware that buildersmate or I have indicated anywhere that you are considering suing the company. I also think that collectively buildersmate, Ethel, Buenchico, etc have given some good advice and pointed out the difficulties you may face in challenging the company's decision based on our experience in these areas. Clearly you are going througha stressful time and are understandably hurt at the way you have been treated. If you are not happy with the overall help you've had from us on AB I think you need to engage a solicitor. To repeat the advice from buildersmate:
"Try and get to the CAB to get referred to a solicitor for 30 minutes of free advice, if you can get it. At least you know something of the basic questions to ask an expert. "
Good luck. Let us know how you get on.
"Try and get to the CAB to get referred to a solicitor for 30 minutes of free advice, if you can get it. At least you know something of the basic questions to ask an expert. "
Good luck. Let us know how you get on.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.