Being made redundant but offered re-employment

[walmer3]

I've just received notification that my employer intends to make me redundant on Tuesday and then offer re-engagement on a 3 day week basis. I'm confused!

To explain further - I've been in discussions since the beginning of December about accepting my employer's proposal of a reduced working week. They wanted to put everyone on a 3 day week (I am currently on 4 days and was due to move up to 5 in April). For a variety of reasons too long and complicated for this post, I have not accepted. I did so knowing that redundancy was a possibility.

I had a redundancy consultation meeting this week and today received by email a letter following that meeting. They say "...we have reluctantly come to the conclusion that your contract will terminate by reason of redundancy. Thereafter, we will be offering you re-engagement on the terms currently on offer, that being a three day week for three days pay."

I've been with the company 10 years so would be entitled to 10weeks notice + 10 weeks at £330 (I thinki) if made redundant. I don't know what my entitlement would be if I accept immediate re-employment? And, apart from me losing my continuity of employment if I accept re-engagement, what else would be the motivation in offering re-engagement?

I'd be really grateful if someone can comment. Thanks!

I would expect your continuity of employment to be preserved, and that should be clarified.

In the event of redundancy, you forfeit redundancy pay if you unreasonably refuse an offer of suitable alternative employment. However an offer of fewer hours wouldn't normally be classed as a suitable alternative, so if you refuse, you should still get redundancy pay.

The motive for them in offering reengagment is that presumably they do still need people, just on fewer hours, and if those people accept the new terms it won't cost them redundancy money. Motive for you in accepting it is you still have a job in an uncertain market.

Flowery, thank you for coming back so quickly. I was kind of hoping you would be online. If you don't mind me clarifying what you have said, if I accept re-engagement would they still have to pay me in lieu of notice but this way they just don't pay the redundancy element?

No you wouldn't get notice pay because you would stay employed. All you'd get is to keep your job really.

Will your 'new' job be exactly the same as the old one, just one day less, but same duties etc? Surely redundency is when the job is redundant - no longer needed - so if they are re-employing you in the same job, just different hours, then that's not redundancy, is it? The job is still there.

Or am I missing something?

I don't know why they are doing it that way though, 'redundancy' and then immediate 'reengagement'. That seems weird. Why not just offer either redundancy or the alternative employment? Find that bizarre.

Sounds as if they want to just change the terms and conditions of the staff.

that does seema bit weird are you in a union at all? they should be able to advise you if you are. if not, could you see someone at your local citizens advice? good luck xx

well yes, but the question is if the deal is either accept the new terms or be made redundant, why try and terminate everyone and then re engage? Why not just say either redundancy or new hours?

hmm] i think it's slightly suspect and that they are trying to save money on redundancy packages. or is that just me being with mn head on ? cynical?

I wonder if they just mean dismissal then and then re-engagement and somewhere along the line have got confused and think they have to pay redundancy? I don't think they are compelled to pay it at all if there is a subsequent re-engagement.

I feel this may be a lifeline if I choose to accept it. Naturally I could have said at (or before) the 'redundancy consultation meeting' this week that I accepted the 3 day terms. If I had done so it would not have been on the basis of redundancy then re-engagement, it would just have been on the basis of an agreed change to employment terms. So yes, I am still confused.

please investigate further before you say yay or nay xx

My company had some rule where they could not re-employ someone they had made redundant within 6 months, even in a new position. Don't know if this is the law or not though. I would think it's silly to use the word redundancy tbh but I am by no means clued up on employment law.

If they made you redundant and you accept it, I do think it would be illegal for them to then employ s completely different person to do the same role.

A thought that's just occurred to me: are they somehow obliged as part of a redundancy procedure to formally offer me the three-day position that they say my role now is? Maybe they're just paying lip service to the obligation.

walmer3 in a redundancy process it's good practice to offer everyone at risk the opportunity to be considered for any vacancies, but in terms of formally offering you suitable alterntive employment where possibe, which they are obliged to do, as the new post is on different terms and conditions it wouldn't be a suitable alternative.

This seems all a bit weird and I have to say correspondence seems very poor if issues such as continuity of employment, notice, redundancy pay, other service-related benefits, all that, have not been addressed.

What do you want to do walmer3? If it actually is 10 weeks notice pay plus 10 weeks redundancy pay and no job versus a job on fewer hours, which do you want?

The issue that it came down to, and the reason that I didn't accept the original 3 day week reduction in terms, is that they refused to state a limit of time in the proposal. Even when I suggested a rewording of the proposal to say that after 3 months I would revert back to my original salary unless an alternative arrangement was mutually agreed (knowing that as someone fairly senior I would be able to see whether they still needed to make cost savings and they could trust me to recognise that) they refused to do so. This new offer seems to mean a permanent 3 day week basis so NO increase in salary/hours ever. Which they know, as I have had to go into a lot of personal financial detail to try to justify my position, that I can't afford. It's difficult to get work in the same line to cover the two additional days as there would be likely conflicts of interest.
They have said there will be a meeting next week on the matter so I presume terms/conditions etc of the new offer would be discussed then.
As the last few weeks have proceeded I have had to get used to the possibility (indeed likelihood) of being made redundant and the notice/redundancy package would at least have been a buffer for a few months to find a new position or pursue new avenues.

You were perfectly within your rights to refuse to reduce your hours. But if the deal is either redundancy (with appropriate pay) or a permanent reduction, which will you go for?

At the moment, probably redundancy. Am I crazy?

I guess what I meant by that was - redundancy, unless I am missing something obvious about the current position (aside from the not insignificant fact of being employed at all).

Sorry, I was posting here while feeding/putting the children to bed! To answer some of the other points: I'm not in a union. And yes, the new job would be exactly what I'm doing now, just for 3 rather than more days. What I was told at the redundancy meeting was that due to the need for cost savings the position was now a 3 day one.

There are a load of other issues about this behind the scenes that I don't want to bore everyone with. The key aspect though is that some of the behaviour of my manager in the last few weeks surrounding this issue has brought a massive issue of trust to the fore. My MD has shown that they are prepared to lie bare-faced to staff (and they know that I know that). That is another reason why I question continuing employment with them (but equally, why I am questioning the wording of the letter I've now received).

The more I think about it the more I think it's just lip-service to fulfil how they interpret a legal obligation (ie offering alternative employment).

Hi walmer and sorry to hear you're in this position. One thought, from someone who might be facing the same choices by the end of the month; if you accept the reduced hours and then they decide to make you redundant in say 6 months time, then presumably the payout would be on the basis of the new contract rather than the old. Seems unfair but I think they can do that.

Rockdoctor you make a very good point and one which was one of my original concerns about the original offer 'on the table'. Our employers refused to put in writing any guarantee that redundancy would be based on the original salaries, but said that they would be. (Of course that is not the case in terms of this reference to possible 're-engagement').

I have found this on the BERR site:
Offer of renewed or new employment
"An employer may offer an employee re-engagement, either in the old job or in different but apparently suitable work, before the end of the protected period. An employee who refuses such an offer without good reason will lose the right to payment for the rest of the protected period."

Obviously this backs up Flowery's earlier comment. My worry (in my current paranoid feeling of lack of trust) is that they are trying to suggest this is a reasonable offer and if I refuse it then they don't need to pay me.

No not crazy for saying you'd think about taking redundancy. 10 years in terms of notice and redundancy money is a fair amount, plus the alternative offered is not what you want/need financially anyway.

I don't think that they could argue that an offer of alternative employment on less hours and therefore (presumably) a significant salary cut is a suitable alternative and I therefore think they could not argue that refusing it would mean you are not entitled to your redundancy pay.

'Suitable alternative' means terms and conditions and also appropriate in terms of skills and experience. This would be apprpriate in terms of job content, but would be significantly less favourable terms and conditions.