Redundancy problems

[confuddledandconfused]

DH is being made redundant in a couple of weeks. The place where he works is closing along with another nearby, so everyone is out of a job.

Since the announcement he's had meetings with managers and a union rep.

Those who live near to another place the company have (they have quite a few nationally), have not been offered redundancy, they have to transfer.

DH was blindsided at his second interview, where they verbally told him he could transfer to one of these places, work less days a week and have four weeks to decide and retained the right to full redundancy if it didn't work out.

The company cannot force anyone to transfer if they live over a certain prescribed distance. This is the same with all companies that are the same business. It is not allowed to have a long commute due to the nature of the job. Most companies prefer you to live within a couple of miles.

He said he was willing to explore this option, but needed it in writing that he would retain the right to his redundancy pay if it didn't work out in the four week trial, they said he would and they would discuss it more when he had his final meeting.

He's now been told he won't be having a final meeting. Instead they've given him a letter saying that they're pleased he's agreed to transfer.

The letter states that as we live too far, the role is subject to a four week trial period, but *nowhere does it state that he can leave within the four weeks and still get the payment^, which is what was agreed in the meeting and he verbally agreed to it on that basis (and I was with him).

It also says that he is no longer at risk of redundancy due to transferring despite being told he retained the right to redundancy anytime until the end of the four week period and could change his mind anytime during the period from the meeting until then

The letter states about a relocation package, but that it becomes repayable if he leaves for any reason, or if they get rid of him for any reason.

The letter also just says that he is transferring on the same basis and nothing about him having less hours (and long before the closure was announced he told me he was thinking of asking for less hours.

So he's now told them he won't sign the letter agreeing and he wants to take redundancy. He talked about it with the union rep, who knew they'd agreed to the redundancy still standing during the four week trial period and the reduced hours, but can see the letter has none of these assurances in.

So that's that. We're waiting to hear, but I've not told him that my worry is that the letter says as he's transferring he's no longer at risk of redundancy, despite them saying in front of me, that he could choose to accept redundancy anytime up to the end of the four week trial period.

I think you might be slightly falling into the trap here of attributing to malice what may be simply (administrative) incompetence. I think it's quite likely that rather than maliciously offering him one thing then sneakily withdrawing it later, they've simply used a generic/copy and paste trial period offer letter that doesn't include the specific details you agreed at the meeting. Quite right to query this but no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, does he want to do the 4 week trial or not? If he does I would simply ask can they reissue him the letter including the details agreed at the meeting i.e. the reduced hours. And also say you assume that as you clarified at the meeting and as per section xyz of the policy, redundancy payment will still apply if at the end of the 4 week trial period he decides he does not wish to continue at the new location. I would also double check whether, if this is the case, whether the redundancy would be based off his old full time hours or his new reduced hours.

I think you're overthinking the at risk/not at risk thing. That's just terminology companies use, I too as an HR person would say that if someone has accepted a trial redeployment period they no longer have the 'at risk' status because we aren't actively seeking to redeploy, we wouldn't offer them another role in priority to another candidate etc, while they're on the trial period they are no longer under active notice of redundancy. It doesn't mean that if the trial period fails I'm going to withhold their redundancy pay, otherwise it wouldn't be a trial period would it.

Or obviously if he just wants to be made redundant then sure, take the redundancy, but why did he agree to the trial period then?

Regardless of anything they put in the letter, there is a statutory trial period in suitable alternative employment. Your husband has the right to decide the job is not suitable and claim statutory redundancy pay at any time within the first 4 weeks. That is the law.