compromise agreement

[mummy2myhoney]

I have been asked to sign a compromise agreement due to redundancy. I think the company have been playing safe as from the start, that is a month ago they have told as that we are at risk of redundancy and, then at the last consultaion they offered compromise agreement. I know they offer more money than statutory but this is just a fraction more. I have been there for many years in a senior position. There have been some other vacancies in the companies but they have all gone to young people with no children. I feel that I should negotiate better payout as I feel that they have not recognised my hard work and loyalty after some many years. I have previously had some disagreemnets with them due to stress caused by another employee and also them not helping out. Also I have asked to reduce my hours bu only a few which they did not and then gave part time to one of the employees in the team for 6 months. Do you think that is it possible to get better payout? thanks

Hello. So sorry this is happening - it sounds rotten. I'm no expert, but didn't want to leave your post unanswered.
I doubt they would be offering a comp agreement if they felt you had no case against them, so presubambly that gives you some leverage.
There are lots of HR and law experts on this board, so hopefully someone should be able to give you a good answer.

Hello. If you have a comp agreement you are obliged to get independent legal advice (usually a solicitor but can be a trade union). Usually the company will offer some payment towards the costs. Suggest you get that advice lined up from a reputable employment lawyer asap. They may be able to help you get a better settlement, if there are factors which mean you have a viable claim. Best of luck.

Agree with seoladair -why offer a compromise agreement if everything has been done properly? Why not just offer normal redundancy package? Have they not considered suitable alternative employment for you in a fair and objective way? It sounds like something is amiss.
But you might just feel like taking the money and going.
Check what they will do about any references - you don't want any future employment affected.

In lots of businesses even where they're confident about the process, they offer a comp agreement whenever they are paying more than statutory, so they don't have to necessarily think they've done anything wrong.

mummy2myhoney do you think there was anything wrong with the process? The other positions you refer to, did you apply for them and did you get feedback as to why you were unsuccessful?

Previous disagreements won't have a bearing unless there is an outstanding potential legal claim about them.

I am an HR manager and agree with flowery - it is standard parcatise in lots of places to do a compromise agreement whenever above statutory payment is offered.

Good idea to ask your solicitor to see if they can negotiate any higher payment for you.

Good luck.

Def see a solicitor - some compromise agreements will have a clause in to say that the company will pay a certain amount towards solicitors fees. A compromise agreement will usually bar the employee from taking matters further to a tribunal so that's one of the reasons they are offered.

With flowery on this. We offer comp agreements as standard even if we know a normal redundancy would suffice. Just makes people bringing claims later much much harder, so saves time and money for us all around.

Many thanks all. I am sure they have done everything by the book but there were few vacancies, and I have applied for two of them. I was sure I had a chance as I am one of the long serving and experienced staff, but they have chosen people with less experience, and younger. Of course they will fight back saying this and that. But this is how I feel. Another friend of my who is being make redundant thinks the same. She has many, many years of experience and and additional trainig is always provided if necessary. But she is going too. I have previously been discriminted when I have asked for reduction of working hours (less 2.5-3 hrs a week) and been refused and strangly after few month they have given part time(3 days PT) to someone else. My mgr told me that time that he was not happy about it himself but HR had to do it to cover themselves just in case the person would sue. Maybe I should have done something then but since I been unwell (and on medication) and wanted to remain loyal to the company (it doesn't pay I know that now!), also I know for the fact that they would mark me down on my apprisal and this would cost money (bonuses and pay rises) and carried on for 6 month.
I have already taken legal advice, meaning solicitor, they suppose to be good but they are yet to look at it. I have previously been made redundant and they have given me the equivalent of this only after 2 year of service and did not asked to sign any agreements. I do not mind signing the agreement but what the offer is not proportionate to what I have contributed to the company. I feel very let down.

I have to disagree that because they turned down your request for reduced hours that means you were 'discriminated against', and the fact that someone else negotiated it at a later date doesn't have any bearing.

Long-serving is meaningless, as is age, but if you are more experienced in the relevant area than the people appointed to the jobs you applied for, you might have some negotiating room there. Have you got feedback on why you were not successful?

Redundancy pay is absolutely nothing to do with recognising a level of contribution, and I think you need to move away from that type of thinking. It's a basic legal amount which they are enhancing a bit, and the only grounds for them giving more is if they have reason to be concerned about a legal case. How hard you've worked or whatever is irrelevant unless they are feeling particularly generous/flush, which in circumstances involving redundancy, is unlikely.

Flowery, many thanks. I have to say though yes I have been discriminated, there was no negotiations in case of my colleague case rather HR went this way since the person went on off sick constantly and they have been a bit difficult with him so HR wanted to cover their back. It was not my case. Also the reason they gave me was that it would be a burden (in short) for other members if I leave 0.5 hr a day. But yet it was OK for me to work less staff for 2 days. Even my supervisor said they are not doing the right thing and felt that this is very unfair to refuse one person to leave 0.5 hr earlier a day but then allow the other person to have two days off. In this case he did not have any say, HR has not consulted him or the manager of the department as it was the procedure in my case. Would you say that this is fair?
As for the experience I do have more that a girl who has been selected (6mths only) but yes she is probably cheaper than I am.

Someone else having their request agreed doesn't mean you were discriminated against. It's possible you were discriminated against but without knowing all the ins and outs it's not possible to say. It may not have been 'fair' that someone else's request was granted, but unfair and discriminated against are not the same thing. Apart from anything else, unless the other person was a man and you could say your request was refused because you are a woman or something, discrimination just doesn't come into it.

Also, fwiw thinking HR have the power to make this type of decision just isn't the case I'm afraid. If the management of the team wanted to allow your request, HR couldn't have stopped them, and vice versa.

But regardless of that, it bears no relation to your redundancy situation so you need to let it go. Speak to your solicitor about not getting the vacancies. You still haven't answered my question about whether you have asked for feedback as to why you were not successful, so I'm assuming not, but you need to do that in order that your solicitor can work out whether there's any mileage in saying that decision was unfair.

Ok thanks. I have spoken to my mgr and he said that one of the roles was client facing and he was telling me other things (cannot go to exact datails) but it is not something I could not do. I have always maintain good relationship with clients although not face to face (via phone and emails) and I know I would not be a problem. As for the second vacancy they said that there is a lot of analysis etc. I am not going to argue with them whether I am suitable or not because they have made a decision and my manager will always 'but...' if I say something. Spoken to my supervisor and he agreed with me that I would be just fine, being with the company for so many years the rest would come on the job as you go along. The other person will have to be given training so could I.
As for the other case yes there is something I could maybe use... sorry cannot say here...
I will of course speak to my solicitor in more details and we will take it from there. She will see what can be done and if it can be done.
However if there is anything else I should mention, think of let me know. All coments appreciated. many thanks