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?

@Chillymoanday Gently, while I understand how angry you are, you cannot hope to 'win' this one no matter what you do. It's maddening, it's not fair, and I understand your anger, but it is what happens constantly, in spite of what the law may say.

If you are absolutely sure that it is you they want rid of (and it sounds like you are probably 💯 % correct) they WILL find a way to do it legally and can 'prove' that due processes have all been followed, even if there was a sub-text to the decision.

You don't want to go to the police about what happened with someone in your place of employment. You are adamant you are not going to do that, which is up to you, but as a result, it now becomes somewhat irrelevant, because you cannot now refer to it at a tribunal or whatever, and even if you do, it will look like you are possibly making up the accusation, since it was never reported to the police before the settlement/redundancy was ever mentioned. You cannot be sure that the witness will back you up either.

You can push them for a much better settlement than currently offered, agree a good reference, garden leave etc and just leave. You won't have to deal with them again

Or, you can refuse to sign the settlement, end up being made redundant at less good terms - and they WILL find a way to justify their decision to make you redundant.

I repeat, you cannot win and it won't cause them any grief to have to do a real redundancy scoring, etc. You on the other hand are stuck there for longer than you need to be?

I'm sorry this has happened to you, but you would be foolish not to negotiate a settlement while you can. Do you really want to stay there anyway? After what happened? Much as you want revenge, the only person who will be hurt trying to get it, is you

Let it go?

i wonder if the OP was meant be working today?

@Silvers11 I disagree, you can win but only if you take control of defining what a winning outcome is for you. Most people are very bad at defining what winning means in their lives. Sometimes winning is just the least-worst outcome, but if you achieve that you've done the best you could.

The OP comes across as someone still thinking in the heat of the moment. Unclear what they want in terms of definite achievables, clear what they think they don't want, and driven by emotion - looking at their posts to this thread the closest they've got to defining what they want from the situation is revenge.

.

OP - this is an emotional process for you. You want to exert some control and revenge and (maybe) justice by not ‘going quietly’. I get it. I think most people who have responded do too. But this is not an emotional process for the company - it will not engage or respond or ‘feel’ in the way you seem to be looking for.

You will achieve a best outcome by pushing for the highest financial settlement - not getting wrapped-up in real or perceived grievances that will lead nowhere (and, no, it won’t make it difficult for the company - they will just follow process in a businesslike manner). Donate the settlement if you don’t want the money.

Jobs are made redundant not people. If your team is downsizing from saying 5 to four, you might be approached if they know you are unhappy for example. If you say no thanks, I'm not looking to leave then they should start approaching others, if the whole team is being disbanded they will have approached everyone, but some are keeping quiet.

Your employer will usually pay for your legal advice for a settlement agreement (it’s because if you don’t consult one, you can later say you didn’t understand it) so check with them.

Much as you want exact revenge, prolonging this would almost certainly be more traumatic for you than them.

Definitely consider maximising your settlement (donate it if you don't want to keep it) and walking away.

With that said, by it's very nature accepting a settlement means you're waiving your right to go to tribunal.

They will have to pay for your legal advice up to a certain amount.

Be aware that as part of a settlement agreement they will ask you to sign away any right to raise future action/grievances against them so that will be why they are offering you this rather than redundancy.

You were subjected to SA in the workplace which is horrific. Just go. Get your revenge through the legal system and give the money to charity if you don’t want it.

Don’t draw this situation for longer than necessary - for your own MH.

It really sounds like you want to refuse the severance package and make it difficult!
I work in HR; how long have you been aware of the consultation process? Is there offer a voluntary severance package? it sounds like it might be when you stated something about then wanting to make it easy? I haven't retained information from all the comments :)

It is not the person who is made redundant it is the role.

It sounds like your relationship with your employer might have broken down in the circumstances you describe. In the circumstances grab the offer with both hands. A lot less stressful for you than the alternative which would be to be managed out with no pay off, it is a no brainer.

See if they can bump up the amount.

Grab it.

Go.

= You're free of an environment you don't like, where you feel they don't want you and want you out, and you've got money for your next steps.

They’re wrong all the time, unfortunately.

Im a senior chartered HR professional. Haven’t read the fulll thread but others are right that WP settlement is outside of the redundancy process. So you couldn’t use it to argue that the outcome of the redundancy was decided ahead of time. You’re under no obligation to take the settlement. It’s an offer, that’s all.

Absolutely...negotiate like heck for what you want, and get out. get a job at a place that appreciates you. The mental stress of an unfair dismissal case is huge...it can drag on a very long time. Take the money and do something lovely for yourself.

I've been on both sides of this - made redundant by one company and had to make people redundant at another.

When I was made redundant, the firm really did make a lot of errors in the process. I could have taken it to court, but it would have taken a lot of time and effort (years) and wouldn't have made the company address its working practices in any meaningful way.

I was able to use the paper trail of their errors to strengthen my negotiating position, asking for and receiving twice the settlement they initially offered. I wanted to put my effort into the future, rather than give them any more of my brain space.

We can overly attach our identities to our role in a particular company, but at the end of the day work is transactional. Move on.

When I had to make people redundant, the criteria were clear but the weighting of the criteria might not have been what you are expecting. We weren't just looking at output per individual, but more at each person's willingness to be flexible and adapt to changes in the industry for the future.

In this sense, it was people who'd rejected further training opportunities, who refused to mentor new team members or share their knowledge in other ways who ended up being made redundant. Also, past 360 degree reviews were used.

For all of this, there is a paper trail. If there's a history of feedback that's been raised with you, either on your soft or hard skills, but you can't show steps you've taken to address it, then you're in a weaker position.

I may be too late on this as I see your latest post says you are going to leave the thread, but any discussion around a settlement agreement is a protected conversation. If you don't accept the agreement, you can't use the conversation as evidence that this is an unfair dismissal. If you do accept the agreement, you will give up your right to take them to tribunal.

If they are offering a settlement agreement, they should pay for you to take legal advice on it. It is in their interests to do so as the agreement is not binding on you unless you have taken independent advice from a lawyer or a similar qualified advisor (e.g. a trade union official).

You say the amount on offer is only just more than your redundancy pay. Without knowing the details it is impossible to be sure, but it suggests you should be able to negotiate a higher settlement, particularly if there is evidence to support an unfair dismissal claim. The settlement will be less than you would have got from a successful unfair dismissal claim, but it avoids the stress and uncertainty of going to tribunal.

If you have agreed to a "without prejudice" conversation you cannot use the content of that conversation, including the fact they asked you for the conversation, to prove that it's a foregone conclusion.

You can force them to go through the process and then take them to tribunal if you believe they have unfairly selected you. However, ACAS will encourage you to settle before action and if you reject an offer they make (which could be similar or higher than the one you have received) that would be more than you might win at tribunal, you will not get more.

Costs for employment tribunal are not refunded by the employer if you lose. Costs for a lawyer under a settlement agreement are refunded.

Tribunals are being heard in September 2025 for cases referred today and you will have the emotional cost to bear during all that time as well.

As a former trade unionist I always advised, if they want you gone, then accept it and move on. But negotiate more money and maybe an outplacement service to help you get another job.

Right now I'd be asking them for a higher offer, and a decent reference.

Hi OP, I work in HR and you've had some good advice from the majority of posters.

They want you gone, so you will be leaving, either by accepting this settlement, being made redundant or by being managed out under a performance and conduct process. That much is clear.

The discussion about the settlement was a without prejudice conversation so you cannot refer to it at any potential tribunal. It is outside of and separate from the redundancy process.

They will also have made you a first settlement offer lower than they are willing to go. Unlike others, we don't offer a third of the amount we are willing to pay but we do always offer a settlement figure lower than the figure management have agreed we can go up to. So, in your situation I would negotiate. You're the only woman, so you could make a bit of noise about that and sex being a protected characteristic under the Equality Act in the hope they'll accept a counter offer.....but it's a risky strategy and could backfire.

In your position I would try to politely and firmly negotiate for an increased settlement figure, agree a reference, get out of there and not look back.

I'm not sure that we are disagreeing much, if at all? It is clear that she is out for revenge - or thinks she is at this stage. That appears to be what she wants from her posts - but I have finished my post by saying 'Much as you want revenge, the only person who will be hurt trying to get it, is you'. You are right that she hasn't defined it much more than that, but imo causing them extra work isn't actually revenge which will benefit her at all. Just my view

We're substantially agreeing.

I'm just saying that she can take a win, even if it's a small one, by getting an outcome that's satisfactory for her. Semantics. But I think we're also in agreement that she's not yet in a place to know what that satisfactory outcome is.

Doesn’t without prejudice also mean that you can’t use the discussion in any subsequent legal or tribunal proceedings?

HNRTT but although you are convinced their offer means redundancy is a sham, if you are giving witness testimony in front of an industrial tribunal (unless things have changed since I last had an understanding) or you're not based in England and Wales, how can you back up your assertion that there is a causal link? Your belief might not, of itself, be convincing.

This ^

😆

‘Without prejudice’ doesn’t automatically make something privileged - there must be a pre-existing dispute. Which doesn’t sound the case here. Something else to get proper legal advice on rather than just random mumsnetters.