Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Original poster

No money to pay redundancy after 35 years service?

27 replies

ladynade · 18/07/2006 20:50

My mums employers are trying to give her the push without paying her redundancy. She is over 61 and her contract is binding. She also knows of other members of past female staff who worked until 65. She works part-time and they are moving premises but saying that she is on a short term contract even though she has signed nothing new! Surely they have to re-locate her? They say there is no money to pay her to leave. The union is involved but she trusts no-one - I am trying to help her out by getting some advice quickly any ideas who I could turn to ?? I feel quite angry about it all-she works in the childcare sector for a voluntary organisation. She will receive no pension from them and doesn't want to be forced out of work like this. Does she have any rights? Any thoughts or advice greatly appreciated - or perhaps someone you could recommend

OP posts:
JakeysMummy · 18/07/2006 21:41

Hi ladynade, have you tried ACAS? They were a big help to me when I was returning to work after having my son and they were being funny about wanting to work part-time. They have a website www.acas.org.uk, this has basic information about your rights, but I phoned them to explain my exact situation and they were v helpful, number is 08457 47 47 47. Give it a go! HTH xx

SenoraPostrophe · 18/07/2006 21:47

the union are def the people to talk to. why does she not trust them?

the law changed a few years ago explicitly to stop employers from issuing short term contract after short term contract. if you've worked at a company for more than (erm...1 or 2) years then you have full rights. as far as I know the only time a company gets out of redundancy pay is when they go bust.

Original poster
ladynade · 19/07/2006 08:49

I will phone acas today for her. Thanks for that. I think my mum is so bamboozled by everything she is finding it hard to trust anyone. I think its compounded by the fact that there were people on the mgt committee who she knew and talked to in the past who are lying unashamedly to her face now. I.e. telling her that she's on a short term contract when she clearly hasn't ever seen or signed one! How much bolder can you get?! Anyway, they can not move to the new premises until the company is united. some have new contracts (which my mum was advised not to sign 2 years ago) and finish on a certain date for summer-others like my mum with a binding old contract and a new unsigned contract don't know when to leave work for summer (it may be seen as leaving the job) and then thats what they will get them with ..what a mess

OP posts:
puff · 19/07/2006 08:58

Your poor Mum , being treated so shoddily after all those years service. As others have said ACAS should help. If she is in a union that will help too - is it the union rep at her place of work that she doesn't get on with? I know this can sometimes happen, but she can easily circumnavigate them and ring the regional or union head office.

I'm sure she has rights too - the rules for part time and or/contract workers did change to give them equal rights to other employees.

She needs to try and ignore what her employers are saying to her for the moment and hopefully get her regional union rep to come in and tell her employers what they must do by law.

edam · 19/07/2006 09:06

That's terrible. Agree ACAS is a good point of call plus the Dept Trade and Industry employment website - links from their main site. She might also be able to get a solicitor on legal aid - I'd guess Citizen's Advice Bureau might be able to reccomend someone. If she's finding it hard to know who to trust, could you go along with her to any meetings? She's entitled to take a representative of her choice to any meetings about dismissal, I think, but DTI/ACAS will advise.

Uwila · 19/07/2006 10:06

As a nanny employer, if she works for me for more than 2 years I have to give her for weeks pay if I make her redundant. So, surely your mum is entitled to this payment if they make her redundant. However, if they make her redundant, they must not turn around and fill the position with someone else. Not sure how it works if the company pick up and moves at the same time. Is it a different position if it is in a different location? I don't know.

Uwila · 19/07/2006 10:06

for=four

Original poster
ladynade · 19/07/2006 10:57

I phoned acas and the bottom line is that retirement age is 65 not 60 like she thought. It doesn't matter if they are a voluntary organisation not offering a pension scheme they pay wages and so even if the company went bust (they are claiming they have no money to pay redundancy) the council/govt will have to pay out.She has rights as a part-time worker-but still this business of old and new contracts needs to be sorted out with her union. Her old contract is binding I just think they are applying pressure as she is naive to their games and are waiting for her to leave under the stress of it all. (P.S. She went from full time to part time with them 2 years ago to look after my babies! while I went back to work) I feel awful and need to help her here

OP posts:
Sparks · 19/07/2006 11:33

What union is she in? You could contact the regional or national office and find out who her full-time union official is. She is entitled to representation and TBH it sounds like she needs it if they are lying to her and trying to pressurise her.

If she is being made redundant, there is a whole procedure the organisation have to follow, including consultation with the staff.

Uwila · 19/07/2006 12:23

If they issued a second contract, which she did not sign (and therefore did not agree to) it is not legally binding.

Original poster
ladynade · 19/07/2006 13:09

yes this 2nd contract is the short term contract and she has never signed it - she is therefore still on her normal contract that she signed back in the 70's! But the person she job shares with is on the short term contract and has to leave in july. (I'm getting more info from my mum at them moment by phone). Because the place is downsizing (she is experienced but not qualified what would they likely do? with her? these days they want degrees in childcare to work in it i personally wish they would offer redundancy-just cough up and let her go. I have told her to sit tight as I feel things are in her favour and she says that the new union guy (unison) was on their side and told the mgt committee that they were talking rubbish! Thanks for all your support

OP posts:
Uwila · 19/07/2006 13:50

So, where does your mum live? Maybe a nice mumsnetter could employ her and be a much nicer employer.

edam · 19/07/2006 13:54

Argument that they don't have the money to pay redundancy is irrelevant - not your mother's problem. They can't just ignore the law! If they are that cash-strapped, they'd have the receivers in, FGS. (And it will cost them MUCH more if they have to defend themselves at a tribunal).

suejonez · 19/07/2006 14:04

rules on redundancy pay here

AS Uwila says if she has not agreed to the new contract she should still be operating under it unless they can claim that they told her about the changes and she needed to object within a certain time.

If they have changed her contract then she will probably be able to claim that at the point they cancelled her old contract, that was a dismissal and she would be entitled to redundancy at that point. They can't get out of it. Saying they don;t have the cash to pay is beside the point - thats why there is a law about statutroy redundancy pay to stop companies just saying "sorry not enough cash, bye"

She can report them to the charities commission if they are a charity.

The Union should be unbiased and give her good advice.

DominiConnor · 24/07/2006 01:46

I'm not sure if I get Uwiula 100%, butthing you should be very clear that you can be bound by a contract without signing it. If both parties actas if the contract is agreed then most times it is just as if it had been signed.
That being said, it's my understanding that after 35 years, neither side can claim this is a short term contract.
The notion tha there is "no money" actually means I guess thar some bean counter hasn't allocated a budget. On the face of this, it's redundancy.

Union reps vary a lot in competence, but should be the first people to go to.

Original poster
ladynade · 25/07/2006 08:02

Union guy didn't even turn up for the meeting yesterday morning - mum was furious. They had a meeting without him and they said again that she is on a short term contract and even though she hasn't signed it she has been working it and that is binding?! This surely is nonsense. Everybody could just say that what's the point of a signed contract at all then? I still don't buy it and she phoned ACAS yesterday this time who said she is entitled to 3 months notice and 30 weeks redundancy pay. She is writing the letter to her employer this morning. I am getting on to her union this morning too. Thanks everyone.

OP posts:
Uwila · 25/07/2006 08:16

I wonder if it is any help for her to point out that she has never been informed of this contract. I can see that if a company showed her the new contract and she continued to show up for work that PERHAPS that could argue that implied consent. But, surely the burden should be on the company to prove she has ever even seen this new contract.

I'm no employment expert. I'm just speaking on what seems logical to me. I hope it's helpful. Good luck to your mum!

Original poster
ladynade · 25/07/2006 08:48

She has seen the contract but she was advised not to sign it when she turned 60. So it is still unsigned. Sorry for confusion

OP posts:
Uwila · 25/07/2006 10:13

The company I work for changed the Ts and Cs for all employees just over a year ago. They sent out new contracts to literally thousands of employees. We had two choices: sign the contract or say good-bye. So, this makes me think they needed our signatures to make the new contracts binding.

I think it's still worthwhile for your mum to argue that she never agreed to the new contract. And even push them into proving that she had seen it. Can they prove this?

DominiConnor · 25/07/2006 17:37

Sorry uwilia, they did not need signatures to make the contracts binding. This is a commonly held but critically wrong view of the law. Bad things have happened to people who believed it. As far as I know it's never been true either.
Also if they coujld prove it was posted, the law says that the assumption was that it was recieved. Yes, really.

However, it is worth getting them to prove they sent it to her. Many firms are so disorganised, that it may be quite hard for them.

Assuming everything is as desribed, then the next stage may be to threaten with an employment tribunal.
A nice thing about these is that normally the employer can't claim costs, even if they win. Since the employer will typically want a lawyer, then it can get quite expensive quite quickly for them. This is a good stick to beat them with.

SaintGeorge · 25/07/2006 17:56

Useful stuff about contracts, variations and non-acceptance of same on DTI website

SaintGeorge · 25/07/2006 17:58

If she has worked under the 'contract' for a set length of time then she is deemed as having accepting it.

SaintGeorge · 25/07/2006 17:58

accepted

bloody heat getting to my head again

Original poster
ladynade · 26/07/2006 17:40

Saint George this is what I'm reading into it now as she is working it she is deemed to have accepted it....so it would look like they can just pay her 2 years as opposed to the 35 years redundancy. Lovely crafty law not designed for the normal working mum to understand....I still feel there must be a way. Perhaps she could say that she has not received the letters (apparantly she has received 3 and not responded about the new contract) there must be a way around this. Got to keep investigating..time running out though as contract is up in 2 weeks. Tactics of getting them to prove they sent letters out to her could be another route DominiConnor thanks

OP posts:
SaintGeorge · 26/07/2006 18:01

Normally practice is to send stuff like that as recorded delivery (or similiar). If they were foolish enough to use ordinary post then she might get away with saying she didn't receive them.

Swipe left for the next trending thread