Keep redundancy money or pay it back?

[stickygotstuck]

Was going to post in the Work section but not a lot of movement there, and a decision is required by tomorrow am!

DH was made redundant just a few weeks ago. He was then contacted by his old company saying someone left and would he like to interview for this person's job (a different role to his previous one). He got the job.

HR have asked whether he'd like to keep his redundancy money and lose his work benefits (holidays, potential future redundancy payments), or pay back the money and keep his benefits.

He had been working there for around 3 years, so we are not talking a massive amount.

What would you do? And also, what other benefits which we aren't thinking about would he be losing?

If it's Defined Benefit or Defined Contribution pension scheme then check the employer's contribution and any death in service benefits.

Sorry for multiple posts. Thinking out loud

Thanks K8, keep them coming, I am totally clueless about this!

The dates are potentially important. What gap between employment finishing and new job offer being made?

K8, employment officially ended 31st March (although did not have to work full notice), offer made on 8 April.

Hmm. I think because there was over a week gap they would need to be really careful about how they dealt with that including paying a salary because that's a fundamental part of the employment contract and this scenario is not covered by any of the legally recognised breaks in employment (possibly with the exception of temporary cessation of work). They would probably need to pay a salary for the period between offer and start date too although the case I looked at [Welton vs Duluxe Retail EAT] didn't cover that.

You need to do your sums and get the information about benefits. On the face of it the employer needs to do more than just accept the money back and pretend the redundancy never happened to preserve continuous service. I would not be agreeing anything until they have answered a few questions and if they need to give you more time so be it.

Oh and I'd talk to a lawyer. I'd want it all air tight to ensure I actually was able to get the benefits of continuous service. I'm not sure I'd rely on HR to manage this correctly. If a lawyer's going to be too costly and HR can't/won't budge on the payment for intervening weeks I'd not be giving up the redundancy payment.

One other thing to bear in mind, is that if he is deemed to have continuous service and effectively be redeployed into a lower paid role he may have some rights to a trial period without forfeiting redundancy if he or the employer decide it's not working out and possibly rights to compensation for the change to his employment terms and conditions because this is not an equivalent role.

What's for sure is that this is considerably more complicated than just giving back the money as if nothing happened.

Thank you again K8, the trial period thing did not occur to me.

I have read somewhere that for a break in service to actually have taken place, there has to be a min period of one week (incl. 2 Saturdays). Technically, it was just one Sat I think. Unless they are taking the day he actually stopped working there physically as the final date, rather than the 31st of the month.

Oh dear, we were rather hoping it would be a clear-cut case of would you like A or B? B please, and that was that! Not so, I see.

He may be ok if 31st is classed as his last day. I thought you meant 31st was first day of his unemployment. But yes, it is a week for break in service and any day of employment in the week counts with the week running to the Saturday.