DH just got made redundant and I have a few questions for the wise mn board :)

[MrsBigD]

Ok here's the deal, dh has been made redundant before under 1 year of service so for the current crowd he negotiated '3 months pay if made redundant under 1 year service'. Also his notice period is 3 months so I'm saying he should be getting 6 months pay. DH isn't sure and his current company lean towards 'no it's only 3 months pay'

My other question is re annual leave to be paid out. They say it's only days 'earned' until today, I think as he's entitled to a 3 month notice period he should also be getting the leave days for those 3 months?

I hate legal issues like that and dh even more so but in a good mind to go see an employment lawyer. However might be able to save the money if anybody on here knows 'his/her stuff'

tia

He's being made redudundant which is usually effective immediatley. You get a notice period when you are fired, I don't thinks you get it when you are made redundant.

I've been made redundant twice and I got the notice period paid both times. Was a little while ago now though.

Try ringing the ACAS helpline: 08457 474747

thanks pageturner shall pass tel on to dh

goingfor3 when I was made redundant (been there just a year) I got redundancy package + 1 month tax free for loss of office so rules seem to change and/or be different where and whenever... bl**dy minefield ... argh and tomorrow is our wedding anniversary ... they really could have waited another week so we wouldn't have been too depressed to celebrate

when dh was made redundant last year he got paid his notice period from the day he was officially told he was redundant. He did get outstanding holiday pay up to that day, but not for the notice period as it formed part of the salary amount.

I think it is important how it is worded in the contract, whether it is 'payment in lieu of notice' or something else, but the details escape me as I never really understood it tbh.

Oh no, MrsBigD. I'm so sorry. This is terrible.

But....

Can you move back to West London now?

Without seeing the wording in the contract, I would be inclined to take the same view you have in that it's three months notice plus three months redundancy. But, of course, I'm no expert.

MrsBigD depends on what his company's redundancy policy is. With less than a year service he is not entitled to any redundancy money at all by law, so it would be just his notice pay. But if his contract or whatever says that if made redundant it's 3 months' pay plus notice, then of course he should get that. That would be incredibly generous for such short service though. But it will say.

And when paid your notice rather than working it you don't get holiday on top I'm afraid - his last day of employment will be the last day he is at work, not 3 months afterwards.

HTH

flowerybeanbag, just trying to find dh's contract and addendum to work that one out

eleusius... afraid not relocating to West London if then straight to Australia, though I'm not too keen on the prospect of arranging the move in a couple of months with move date January so that dd can start school there... gulp though in the meantime dh is trying to get job here in UK

MrsBigD take no notice of what I said I think I was wrong.

Mrs BigD, I just want to echo what Flowerybeanbag said. Six months' pay all in is incredibly generous for someone with less than a year's service. It does not necessarily follow that because your DH was lucky with a previous employer that his current employer will be so generous.

I am afraid that, given his length of service all he is entitled to is three months' salary (or to work his notice period) plus any accrued untaken holiday UNLESS there is a clear company policy to the contrary. He cannot even threaten to bring a claim about the dismissal because you need a year's service (unless he believes it is about certain specially protected areas like discrimination or retaliation for whistleblowing on wrongdoing by the company).

I don't mean to sound harsh, and I know that this must be a hard time for you, but I think unless his contract helps, you might need to lower your expectations.

Ribena I'm aware of the less than 1 year thing that's why dh negotiated a 'severance package' before he accepted the job due to previous bad experience and the company said no problem because we had to relocate for the job

On the other hand, if you go in January, it will be the height of summer, whcih has got to beat this place in dark gloomy Jan.

eleusis it would beat this place hands down even during a british summer LOL

MrsBigD, have you found the contract wording yet? I agree that this is the key to whether he is entitled to an additional 3 months payment on top of his notice. It would need to be an express term, otherwise forget it.

DH of Tullytwo here

There is no statutory entitlement to redundancy pay until employed for two years. Therefore any redundancy pay will be governed by any contract (whether verbal or written, and whether express or implied)between the employee and employer. In short check the contract.

Notice is a separate issue. By statute the employee is only employed to one week's notice. The employee is only entitled to more if negotiated under contract. Again check what the contract says.

If the employee is contractually entitled to a redundancy payment and notice then both should be given. The employer can ask the employee to work the notice, or if there is a pay in lieu of notice clause- pay the notice instead.

As for holiday pay- this is governed by statute -the Working Time Regulations 1998 which is four weeks per year (pro rata). (More can be given under contract but not less). If you work 5 days per week this is 20 days per year currently. Obviously if you leave part way through the year you only are entitled to the period accrued until termination not the full 20 days. During the first year holidays are accrued on the first day of each month. Employers are reluctant to pay for holidays if they have paid pay in lieu of notice. The legislation says holiday pay should be calculated to the date on which the termination takes effect.

If there is a dispute in relation to any of the above the employee should write to the employer setting out their grievance. The employee should attend any meeting arranged by the emmployer and appeal to the employer if not satisfied with the outcome.

If unresolved a claim should be made to an employment tribunal. In breach of contract cases claims up to £25,000 can be brought to an employment tribunal. The time limit to lodge a claim in tribunal is 3 months from the breach of contract (or six if the grievance procedures are ongoing)

Good luck

thanks dh of tullytwo

re the 'whether verbal or written' how do we prove verbal in a written contract?

DH of Tully Two
It is difficult. It is up to you to prove rather than the employer to disprove. I suggest that you put down in writing the contents of the verbal conversation to include persons involved, witnesses, place and time. Check what the custom and practice is ie with other workers there.
Essentially it will depend on who the tribunal believes on the facts- so the more detail from you the better.
I would suggest you contact a local Law Centre as they will not charge a fee and usually have an employment expert on the staff.
Best wishes

When dh was made redundant he got paid his 3 months notice and then his redundancy money on top..also leave entitlement included those accrued until the end of the notice period.

MrsBigD if it was only a conversation rather than a written policy or contract term you will really struggle - it will be 'he said she said', and they will say 3 months' salary in lieu of notice, your DH will say they said 3 months' salary plus notice.

I'd be inclined to walk away if I were you. He has no rights to any redundancy pay by law, and no right to claim unfair dismissal or anything either (unless its discrimination or similar as Ribena said earlier), and without any clear policy or contract term he really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

I really think you might need to swallow this and put it down to experience, it does sound like your DH did have this kind of eventuality in mind when he was negotiating his contract, but it is so important when you are wanting anything out of the ordinary like this that it is expressly written in black and white in your contract. Presumably if he had to negotiate this as a personal term that means it's not as if that's their usual practice at the organisation for other employees either, so no custom and practice or company policy to point to.

I hope you and DH were able to enjoy a reasonable anniversary today and he find something else soon. If anything, hopefully we have saved you a solicitor's fee at least.

flowerybeanbag, we are sort of walking away from it well at least the severance pay bit ;) there area few other things in the contract where dh could potentially squeeze them a bit especially as they have asked him whether he would mind if eventually they'll get him back to contract for them... the mind boggles doesn't it... he was made redudant because his role was surplus to requirements and there is no other position available for him, but yet they want him back as a contractor???

MrsBigD do be careful of that - they may be making him 'redundant' so early on and then wanting to get him back on a different basis to avoid some of their responsibilities.

If they do want him back, it might be on a similar contract but just short-term, which is obviously fine but unless there really is no work for him currently, difficult to see why they would do that. But they may instead suggest he come back on a 'self-employed' basis.

But if he is doing the same job under similar conditions as he did when he was an 'employee' the Inland Revenue would consider him employed, not self-employed, for tax purposes and he could still have employment rights as well.

See here for information about employees, 'workers' (which can include casual staff, freelancers etc )and self-employed people and the rights they get.

Just so you're aware really, if they do want him back as a 'contractor' and assuming he wants to go, make sure he is aware of his status and his rights and responsibilities. Some employers do try and 'rearrange' people to avoid having them on the books in terms of strictly being an employee, for lots of reasons, budgeting, flexibility, headcount restrictions etc, but if someone is working in the same way as a traditional employee would, chances are that the IR and the Employment Tribunal would consider the person to be employed.

It may not be relevant, but just mentioning wanting him back as a contractor rang some alarm bells so I would want you to be aware of the similarities and differences just in case they try and abuse the situation.

thank you flowery it did sound dodgy to me too as if they want him back contracting then obviously his position wasn't really redundant... shall show dh the link

One thing to bear in mind though is that in Financial Services I have seen this redundancy-contractor thing loads of times: you are forced by senior mgmt to make headcount cuts (which you can then announce to the market as demonstration of prudent cost-cutting in times of downturn), but are allowed to use contractors to cover the work required. And quite often you get the same person back in... ends up costing loads more but is a sleight of hand that keeps senior mgmt happy that they have achieved what they need to do and the line managers happy that they still get the work covered.