Only one offered a settlement instead of redundancy - legal?

[Chillymoanday]

I've been approached with a settlement during the start of consultation but I am the only one who has been approached.

Its a decent figure, but for a few reasons, I'm not inclined to make this easy for them despite the settlement making it fairly clear to me that I'm the employee they want gone.

Can I use this later as proof the decision to make me redundant was already decided?

It's really not about the money necessarily.

Just take it and go. Sounds like a mutually toxic working relationship and you’re both better off without each other,

Are there any tax implications?

They made an offer. You can accept the offer or make a counter offer. If you believe you are not wanted there make an acceptable counter offer.

£30k of it should be tax free (not PILON)

I'm an HR person. You need to listen to the previous posters.

You have nothing here. Do yourself a favour, take the settlement.

Negotiate it up through the solicitor if you can, but you have no "gotcha" moment here....

Also... tribunals are up to 2 years waiting... so do you really want to wait that long for your moment/money only to find out you are wrong?

You can, but perhaps use it to negotiate a better settlement figure now?

Take legal advice if you can get it.

OK, so in the past I have been in a management team where we have offered a settlement (or compromise agreement) as opposed to redundancy to someone. I think from memory, this is the difference: -

Redundancy is due to the employer's need to reduce the workforce and the role will be made redundant, while a settlement (or compromise) agreement is a mutual decision to end the employment relationship, this means the role is not necessarily redundant but they want you gone without you being able to take legal action against them for it. This is not always a negative thing.

Redundancy follows specific employment laws and requires a fair consultation process, whereas a settlement agreement is negotiated between the parties concerned and is legally binding. This means that if you go for the settlement and it is done properly, you cannot takes legal action against them. As opposed to making you redundant against your will, when the job isn't actually redundant, you can then take legal action.

Both can include financial compensation, but the terms and amounts can vary significantly, because (in my experience) they will normally offer you more money to go in a settlement agreement. However if you are seriously considering this, you must ask that they cover your legal expenses for the settlement agreement. By this I mean they agree to pay a solicitor of your choice to represent you and your best interests.

They can force fair redundancy on you, they cannot force a settlement, it has to be mutually agreed and part of that agreement is that you do not have any further legal recourse.

It sounds to me that they know they do not have legal grounds to sack or make you redundant but want to help you leave - if you are in a Union, speak to your Union rep.

The sad thing about redundancy is you can love your job but end of day we are positions on an org chart.
I got made redundant and wrote a counter proposal etc. Was massively stressful..a friend in HR said basically when announced its sort of decision made and had never seen a counter proposal accepted. I'm sirs occasionally they are but rarely.
Others got offered settlements as TUPE was involved.
If more than redundancy take it but use legal rep ro get more due to time of year etc. You will get a half or full hour solicitor app as part of the deal I think.

The fact you're offered a settlement says it isn't predetermined.

They've decided of the "roles" in the company, the don't want yours so they've offered a settlement. If you refuse then there would be a negotiation that may result in you being made redundant.

But offering you a settlement isn't proof they've predetermined to make you redundant. And it's legal even if they've predetermined the redundancy as long as it's for less than 20 roles

It isn't about them making you redundant, it's the role. Which is appreciate to you is the same but legally it gives them wiggle room. If you think this is a done deal I'd take the route most advantageous to you

Sorry, I meant to say that its difficult to tell from what you have said, whether you are the only one going, and whether they have offered you redundancy or a settlement (or compromise) agreement which are two different things. Have they termed it a redundancy settlement? If they have just picked you out of the office and offered you an enhanced redundancy package, I would ask them for a copy of the scoring notes for why you were selected and not the other staff?

I've been in this situation before too. Your employer has made their decision and being difficult about it isn't going to change anything for your employer. In fact the stress factor for you will be a zero sum game.
Just take the money and move on.

The settlement offer will likely be without prejudice and therefore not something that can be referred to or relied upon at court/tribunal

Your employer won't be stressed in the slightest if you turn it down, you will end up stressed (even if you think you wont) if you fight it.

I'd get as much money as possible and go asap, having Xmas off as well.

You might be surprised and still have a job at the end of the consultation. If you actually want to leave then negotiate a higher settlement. If they won’t budge then you’ve lost nothing.

Be careful though. The settlement might be taxable whereas I think redundancy money is not taxable. However if at the end of the consultation it is your job role which goes then if you’ve got legal cover as part of your home contents insurance, you could consult them.

No you can't use that as a reason to take it further and say its predetermined. They will have business justifications already for how many people need to go, if its 1 out of 5 of you they will have scoring and selection criteria and they'll be able to prove why its you and not someone else. You can't ask for the criteria either . If it's individual consultations and you work in the UK - under 20 redundancies does not need a long collective process. They can pick you off one by one quickly and easily. I've been on the receiving end - and I also work in HR operations. The fact that are giving you enhanced counts in your favour and honestly dragging it out will not do you any favours and you might get less. Its very hard to prove constructive dismissal, and you don't mention it, but they could be giving you a settlement as they usually do this with people that have performance issues as an alternative .
If all you are looking for is proof they haven't followed a fair process, I'm afraid you can't prove that from what you've said. It sounds like they've done individual consultation and you met their criteria sorry. You'd be better off negotiating an enhanced package like another month to cover Xmas, any training you'd miss etc. That would help you and puts work in for them. Good luck

I am not sure this is what you want to hear….. but I was offered a settlement just as the redundancy process was beginning at the place I worked. I was the only one asked In my department and my boss was honest with me about it. I was offered because they suspected (rightly as it happens) that when my child started school in the next 6 months I would want to drop off and pick up. This would not really be possible in my job. If I didn’t accept the offer, the whole of my department would go through the redundancy procedure and in all honestly, with the criteria it works to, it’s very unlikely I would’ve been made redundant. If I accepted, then the department I worked in would not need to go through the redundancy process, which in a big company is a whole lot less admin, time and money spent which I got as part of my settlement.

It's legal for employers to offer a settlement agreement "without prejudice" which means that negotiations can happen and it can't be used as evidence that any decisions were pre-determined. If you turn it down, they will then have to go to a lengthy redundancy process at which point they will could just come to the same conclusion they came to before the process, but with the evidence behind them to show it was fair and legal.

If you think this is unfair and a fair process would leave you with one of the remaining positions and you still want this, then you could reject this. But the company will recognise if you take it now they'll save money and time and they'll be offering you more at this point correspondingly.

I'm sorry it's rubbish but you should do what's best for you.

Do you have other colleagues doing the same job as you? Because I think if yes you may have a case for unfair dismissal but that is if they have no reason to let you go other than not liking you.
So wait until they make you redundant without signing the settlement and than sue take them to court.
But I would take the money and run. Take a couple of months break and find a new job.
I know some work places can be toxic but believe me walking away is better.

Conversely, in 20+ years I’ve never seen a proposal be the final version in any consultation.

If they are offering you a reasonable settlement, please consider getting legal advice or seek same from ACAS.

Better to be out of it I'd say. Good luck.

Not sure if this has been answered in any later posts, but your meeting should of been held as a without prejudice conversation, meaning that anything as part of that cannot be discussed outside of the meeting (aside from seeking the legal advise that is needed in order to sign the agreement ) therefore cannot be used as evidence in an unfair dismissal claim. When weighing up if you want to sign I would probably have a think about why they have offered you this agreement ( and can you be sure that you are the only one as strictly speaking you shouldn’t be discussing so maybe others aren’t saying) . If you declined and they went through a proper process are you likely to be selected for redundancy (what is your performance and disciplinary record etc like) if there is a likelihood you are selected I would take the settlement and get the extra money , if you feel the offer is low you could always counter offer

Accept settlement, employees, even with union support, no longer have the strong hand. Unless u can prove 100 percent prove unfair treatment/ bullying or unfair dismissal then you best to settle.

Agreed. In my experience, counter proposals are sometimes accepted, or some version of them. It doesn't always mean there are no redundancies though. And in most cases the initial proposal changes through the consultation.

Just to correct a few of the errors I have read here:

Settlement money is untaxed up to £30k (same as for redundancy).

Redundancy processes for five people are not "lengthy", I've done first consultation on a Monday, dismissal on the Friday. Perfectly legal.

You can definitely ask for the selection criteria, in fact, more than that, you should be consulted on the criteria to be used. This is basic stuff, it's on the Acas website. So the person who said you can't ask for it and also says they work in "HR Operations" - they need to re-read the Acas guides!

It sounds to me that they want you out and a settlement would be better for them because they usually involve the employee agreeing to waive their right to bring certain legal claims.As it is likely to be better for you financially, they may think this might sway you.

If you do not go for the settlement - then redundancy would be their other option. Whilst you often sign an NDA as part of your redundancy I don't think it prevents you making legal claims. They might not know that you have no intention of going to the police and this is their way of trying to pre empt stopping you?

Turning down a settlement offer and then being made redundant shortly afterward could look suspect re the employer's motives. However, proving that redundancy was planned in response to rejecting a settlement offer would depend on the specific circs
If you have raised concerns or are perceived as more likely to challenge redundancy, this could explain why they approached you differently. If there’s no obvious reason why you were singled out, it could suggest your employer was targeting you specifically.
If the settlement offer is made early and only to you, it suggests they wanted to bypass redundancy procedures for you specifically. Has your employer given a clear reason why you were offered a settlement while others weren’t?
Ask your employer why you are being offered a settlement and whether it differs from the redundancy terms offered to others.
Redundancy must be genuine and based on legitimate business needs which you say it is.
Settlement offers are sometimes made to resolve disputes or encourage voluntary exits without a formal redundancy process. If the settlement offer is similar to the redundancy terms (e.g., pay), they could argue it was done to streamline the process rather than retaliation.
I suspect that you are correct that they do want you out – you maybe more than others – but proving it is not necessarily going to be clear cut.
Are you certain no one else has been offered a settlement?