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?

I know I can't report a redundancy to the police 🤣 thanks for the chuckle! ☺️

get some advice from ACAS

Noone is saying the opposite. You, unfortunately, have a comprehension gap.

It obviously is evidence that they want you gone. But it's not evidence you can use, which was what you were asking. You cannot use it because it was a protected conversation.

So, with evidence your employer wants you gone- so what? You now know they will select you. Then they do. You can't use the conversation as evidence in tribunal. You're left having been made redundant. But where is the unfair dismissal claim? You yourself know it's a genuine redundancy (need to reduce by one head). It won't be hard for them to follow a fair and reasonable process.

OK, so some kind of pyrrhic victory that you forced them to go through a process. That's all you've got. If you fancy that, refuse the agreement and get stuck into the consultation process.

This police stuff is a nonsensical red herring.

You'll get legal advice for the settlement agreement. As someone said on page one, take it, get them to negotiate the best figure possible. It's a no-brainer.

OP check your house insurance, if you have it - it often has legal cover for disputes such as this.

Apologies if that's been mentioned previously - I have read all your responses but didn't have time for anyone else's, and while I know this is poor MN form hopefully that is a concrete enough point, of obvious use if not previously mentioned, to be worth raising.

A protected conversation is just that. Get a solicitor, push back. They should pay more and the majority of your legal fees. Job done.

BUT you can’t discuss it. They have every right to withdraw then and you then will be let go with the minimum.

@Chillymoanday I can't see how this could play out in your favour. You don't want to take the criminal matter to the police. In order to win at tribunal, you'd have to prove that they wanted you out for some reason. You can't use the protected conversation as evidence, and presumably you won't want to disclose the criminal matter as evidence?

The police matter involved would form part of your evidence here OP, so if you find it traumatic to discuss, even with a solicitor representing you, I think taking the settlement would be in your best interests here.

You'd also need evidence of the conversation having taken place, so maybe follow up with an email detailing what was discussed and by who while you seek advice.

You are wasting your mental energy here

They don’t want you so why not just take the settlement?

Id respect you more if you were actually bothered about reporting these people to the police

Instead you just want to annoy and irritate them!

I don’t know who is worse tbh!

To be clear I wasn’t talking about the redundancy process, but the police matter referred to by OP. As confirmed by another poster, accepting a settlement and signing an NDA does not prevent reporting of criminal matters.

Just a thought, if the OP is being targeted linked to the police matter, there could be a route of a tribunal for victimisation?

Because I'm the only one out of 5 all in the exact same role in the pool that has been offered a settlement to "bring the process to a close thats less stressful for everyone"

They do definitely need to lose 1 role, so thats not a sham. The sham part would be only me thats offered a settlement then im the one selected

And what happens if you turn it down and you’re then not selected?

You're also assuming that if you turn it down then you’re going to be forcing them into going through the full redundancy process BUT what happens if they then offer it to someone else and keep going through your team until someone takes it?

Are you happy to stay working there and potentially have to leave of your own volition because you’re so unhappy with nothing?

You’re making a lot of assumptions OP so be careful it doesn’t bite you on the arse.

Why do you think they want just you out? You don't sound v happy with your employer.

Your employer will jump through all the correct hoops to document a fair process so you don't have a viable claim.

Meanwhile, very sweetly. " I am very happy to consider this, it would help me if the offer can be enhanced by two months' gross salary and I'd like to work no more than half my notice period- just enough to handover. I would also like an agreed reference as part of the process.

And don't burn yiur bridges.

OP - take the money and run. Why give it any more head space? Everyone has said the same on your thread.

are you the OP with the intermittent posts in 30 days only that had a personal issue with a ex work colleague?

I would move on.

Someone once said to me, there's always a way to get rid of an employee you don't want - they all have a price!

Just realise that their offer is just their opening gambit. They're hoping you'll say yes, but in reality they are willing to go higher.

The risk is that if you say no, they'll have to go through the full consultation process and you may end up just with statutory redundancy pay, so don't be too greedy, but you should be able to get them higher.

I work in HR and typically would open a settlement with a figure 1/3 of what the employer is willing to go up to. So there'll be loads of wiggle room to negotiate.

If the settlement offered is above the minimum legal required redundancy payment then think carefully as it could be withdrawn if you start pushing it..

In an earlier post you say "I want to make a stand tbh, if I can, for me and so I can move on mentally." Trust me, if you do resist this and attempt to take legal action you will not be able to move on mentally for a very long time.

I am a solicitor, not employment but have a specialty in which negotiating people out is a common thing so know a bit about it.The conversation being without prejudice means you are blocked from using it as evidence in any related proceedings.

Ignoring that for a moment (which you can't, as you say about they told you the convo was w/o prejudice) it might be circumstantially supportive,but you would have to be able to show the redundancy process itself was fatally flawed to get anywhere.

Gently (& a a person who has hung herself several times over the years for a point of principle) if you don't want to take action about whatever happened then you'll probably get the best deal by taking some advice and being clear you want to use that to push up the award (noting the employer should cover your legal fees).and screwing them that way. Otherwise you will just end up feeling bitter as employment settlements or tribunal outcomes are generally no where near as good as you might like to think.

Take care

Victimisation is linked to having brought a grievance or asserted a statutory right. Or is linked to a protected characteristic. So, on the facts as presented, no.

If the OP is aware of a criminal matter and has not reported it, then she cannot use the whistle blowing (public interest disclosure) legislation to protect her. Because she hasn't made a disclosure for which she is now suffering a detriment. You can't make the disclosure afterwards and the retro claim (though people often try it).

If she was aware of a criminal matter that she has disclosed (it seems not) then she could potentially claim a detriment as a result, BUT if they genuinely have a need to reduce heads it's going to be hard for her to show this was the reason for the redundancy.

The settlement agreement cannot settle out whistle blowing claims. The OP needs to be really clear if she has blown the whistle. If she has not, then this is a pointless red herring to this situation.

If they just want rid of her because she knows where the bodies are buried....hard luck, that happens all the time. If there was a criminal offence the OP did not report and they want rid of her because of that, well...... karma.

As many others have said you have very little case here.

Do the other people in the pool have the exact same job/have the exact same skill set? If an employer wants you gone they can use anything as an essential skill set if needed - the others having better excel skills for example.

It's clear they no longer want you to work there. I really don't think you have a legal case. If you say no they make you redundant - you go after unfair dismissal, they say the other people had better PowerPoint skills that were essential to the role. Often it's point based and those points are pretty much up to the conpany. Trust me, if they want you out they will make it work for them.

You say you want to make it difficult for them... you won't. Not really. You say no, it's a little bit more admin for them. You take them to a tribunal you will probably lose or end up being advised to settle out of court - probably at less than the settlement.

Hold your head high, don't try and play tit tat just to spite, and walk out the door with your money and a decent reference.

Thank you @Negroany . That was useful insight into the legislation, not my area of expertise but victimisation was mentioned on a call last week so thought it worth a thought, but obviously not!

Didn't read the thread, did you? The advice was wrong!

Great Posts @Negroany. Really interesting too 👌

You surmised wrong. OP mentioned the police first at 11.13, the other poster who told her to go to the police was 11.16. Going to the police in the context of reporting her employers for their behaviour unconnected to the redundancy, that is motivating OP to make this process difficult for them. Not reporting them for a defective redundancy process.

Negroany provided such a concise response from a legal perspective - which is what you said you were asking for - and your reply is frankly fucking rude.