This topic is for discussing childcare options. If you want to advertise, please use your Local site.
Nannies and redundancy(17 Posts)
Reading the other thread has got me thinking about my job.
In Sep 2010 my youngest charge starts full time school, so it is likely that they will only want before and after school care instead of a nanny all day. I will have been with them for over 2 years.
I work 30 hours over 3 days.
If they asked me to reduce my hours to 15 hours over 3 days and I refused - am I still being made redundant? In this case, I think I am.
If they kept my hours at 30 but wanted me to do them over 5 days instead of 3, and I refused - am I still being made redundant? In this case, I am not sure. What if I had another job on the other 2 days? Actually, I don't, but like to work only 3 days a week as I have other (unpaid) commitments on the other 2 days.
I think if they end this contract because they don't need you anymore, you are being redundant. And this would be the case if you don't sign up to new contract (which you are not obligated to do). However, if they propose to change your hours (for the same pay), and you agree to do this, then I don't really think it would be redundancy -- although I'm no expert so someone else will probably know more.
yes you are
your job and hours wont exsist anymore - they legally have to offer you the job (if there is one) ie if they need an afterschool nanny - they must ask/offer it to you
but you are quite in your rights to turn it down as prob wont pay as much and you obv need so much money a week to live on
even if the hours went to 5 days, you still can say no as you might not be able to survive on that
you took the job on 3days a week 10hrs a day and that job would have gone, so yes you are being made redundant
so will get 2weeks pay of up to £350 so £700(or more if amount goes up)
my ex family wanted 2-6 so 4hrs a day 20 in all instead of 50 (8-6)
i said no as wouldnt pay enough and they got a new afterschool nanny who was also a mum so happy to have all day free
sure flowery will come along and confirm what i have said
i am learning about all of this as a potential employer. So is it correct to think that if a nanny is on a fixed-term contract of one year, she would get two weeks redundancy pay at the end?
What would happen if they gave me notice to finish at the end of September (the school does a gradual start to the term for newbies) but I found a job that required me to start on say 14th September?
I wouldn't leave them in the lurch, but if I knew they could cover those 2 weeks and I wanted to take the other job - would I be handing in my notice, rather than be being made redundant? And so, not entitled to redundancy payments?
chandellina - an employee has to have worked for the employer for 2 years before they are entitled to redundancy. I think that if you are on 1 year fixed term contracts,and it is renewed at the end of the 1st year, at the end of the 2nd year you are classed as a permanent employee so would be entitled t 2 weeks redundancy money.
i dont know nbee
redundancy is after 2years chandellina
not sure how fixed contracts stand - again we need flowery expertise
I believe you have to renew a fixed term contract for quite a long time (more like 4 years) in order to be considered permanent staff.
This link says you are entitled to redunfancy pay after 2 years. But, also says you are fixed term up to 4 years. Those two statements seem to me to be in conflict.
think it means even if you are in a fixed term for up to 4years, any time after 2years then redundancy is payable
nbee, your situation is atually a little more complicated. Redundancy provisions are there to keep a financial safety net around people who are losing their job - the picture is actually quite grey when it comes to changing terms and conditions. If they kept your hours at 30 but asked you to do it over 5 days and you refused then technically you are not redundant - you have refused a reasonable offer of alternative hours (whether you think it reasonable is another matter....) and as such there is no obligation to pay redundancy. Likewise, if the only alternative to making you redundant is to reduce your hours, then if you refuse this you are technically again refusing a reasonable offer to avoid redundancy. So in both instances you might not be entitled to any redundancy.
The fact that you have other commitments might sway things in your favour but possibly not. TBH if someone came to me and asked whether they should take this to an employment tribunal, my honest answer would be No, because I am not sure you would win your case, and even if you did, any compensation would be based on how 'out of pocket' you are, and if you have turned down different hours then there wouldn't be any unavoidable financial loss. Would be different of hours were clearly totally unsocial (eg night shifts at weekends).
Am sure Flowery will confirm, will nip over to find her..
I agree you might have difficulty claiming this as redundancy, or at least I don't think it's clear cut. Redundancy is one of the following situations:
the employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was so employed; or
the employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business in the place where the employee was so employed; or
the requirements of the business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind has ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish; or
the requirements of the business for the employees to carry out work of a particular kind, in the place where they were so
employed, has ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish.
If they need to half your hours to 15 a week I think you could claim it as redundancy on the basis of the third reason. If they wanted to keep your hours and pay the same but just change your days, then the third reason is still your best argument on the
basis that the requirement for a daytime nanny has ceased, but it's iffy.
Have a read here about changes to terms and conditions and what happens if you don't agree - you'll see that if there is a genuine business need, they could force through a change to, say, 5 days instead of 3.
In the event of a redundancy situation, you would forfeit your right to redundancy pay if you refused a 'suitable alternative' post. Things like personal circumstances can be valid reasons for saying that a proposed alternative isn't suitable, so it is possible that if your employers chose to handle it as a redundancy, and offered 5 days as a suitable alternative, and you refused saying it wasn't suitable because of your personal circumstances, you could then be entitled to redundancy.
But if I were advising your employer I would be saying depending on whether they wanted to reduce your hours or change them around, they could do it without having to worry about redundancy.
I have been through this as an employer as I suspect will many others on this thread. Of course like you our nanny was aware that school for our youngest would change the requirement - we talked about this openly and well in advance - do you have a strong enough replationship with the family to ask their thoughts - if so I think this would be better than trying to second guess what they might do. Not sure about the redundancy thing - we paid our nanny an amount that was more than the statutory requirement plus references etc etc - as it was the natural end to the job ....good luck hope it works out for you
Thanks everyone for your advice.
I sort of realised that it might not be clear cut.
At the end of the day if I had another job lined up for when that one finished I would not worry to much about any redundancy payment - even if I was legally entitled to it. It would be if I didn't have another job to go to that I would need the money more. But, who knows what will happen next year. The job market may have picked up by then. Will just have to wait and see
Thanks surreylady It is so far off that we haven't discussed it yet. Mum has mentioned that she is retraining and hoping to get a job with more school friendly hours in 12-18 months.
We have a good relationship and chat about most things, but I just felt it was too early to question her about this - after all it's 14 months away! Just me thinking ahead after reading the other thread.
I must admit to being hopeless about talking to her about money. I've been there for 13 months and haven't plucked up the courage to ask for a pay review. It just feels awkward with the current financial climate. I also paid for my own Ofsted registration last year - 1. because they were looking for an Ofsted registered nanny and 2. I hadn't realised that it was usually the employer that paid for the actual registration. It's due for renewal next month and I have every intention of asking her to pay for it, hopefully I'll be brave enough
If you are able to agree very early on as to if they will want to keep you you will be in a better position to look - in terms of letting people know you will be coming available etc. If you have done the job you deserve the monies - need it or not - so if you dont need it you can treat yourself... it would be good to also have a hint that they feel the same - that will be one thing off your mind
I was thinking that next Jan might be about the right time to ask what is likely to happen come September. And I'm sure my mb will be open and honest about it when I do. I've been there for over a year now and we have not had a single problem - me with her or vice versa.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.