Redundancy Question?

Snookered

Hi Everyone,

Have a question on redundancy,
A mate of mine was told at 5:30pm Friday Evening that out of the 50 staff at his job - they need minimum 10 Redundancies
(also stating this should include 1 staff member from each area of the company)
They were told they have to come back with an answer by this Tuesday whether they will take the redundancy or not, and failing that the redundancies are not filled - the Management will make the decision on who is to go within the next 4 weeks.

Now what I want to ask is:
Is this an appropriate (or legal) amount of time to let staff decide whether to take redundancy or not (fair enough there is the weekend) but realisticaly it is only 48 Working hours to decide.
(also note - there is no union in this company)

Second part of question what is the deal if you are with a company less than 2 years, are you still entitled to Redundancy Payment?

Hope somebody can shed some light on this,

Cheers,
Snookered

gerrycollins

under 2 years you get nothing.

What the company did is legal, but the time frame is too short and should be requested to be extended.

The amount of people to be made redundant is all relative to the needs of the business. They are looking for voluntry(?) redundancies first which is fair enough as sone guys might want to leave with a few quid other might not.

Following this they will decide using many factors(or so they say)in deciding who goes etc.

if your mate has a union get them involved.

Newaglish

The company can also tell you at 5.30pm on Friday evening not to come back on Monday - they're entitled to do so (although they will have to pay you statutory minimum notice).

I really wouldn't bother asking for more time as, to be honest, the manager won't be interested and is in no way obliged to offer anybody any sort of option.

For a period of <2 years' service you are not entitled to statutory redundancy although the employer may still pay an ex-gratia amount (thought this may be partially taxable)

3DataModem

Snookered wrote: »

They were told they have to come back with an answer by this Tuesday whether they will take the redundancy or not,

Tell your friend to ask how much he will get if he accepts the voluntary redundancy, and get ready to negotiate.

Snookered

Howdy again peeps, just got another update from my mate.
Things have slightly changed now.

Since my last post, they have received 9 voluntary redundancies
most of the staff have been told there job is ok now as they reached the target in their departments.

But my mate's department, there is 7 of them there.
They have been told the 7 of them have to re-apply for their job next week.
My understanding is that they will only have 4-5 positions available.
so when the 4-5 are selected the other 2-3 will be told sorry your unsuccessful, basically good luck and off you go.

Is there not something illegal about this? are there not minimum terms this?

if these 2 or 3 people are unsuccessful with the (Re)interview and have been there at least 1 to 5 years surely they can not just cut them off ??

Any adive much appreciated,
Cheers

Nody

Snookered wrote: »

But my mate's department, there is 7 of them there.
They have been told the 7 of them have to re-apply for their job next week.
My understanding is that they will only have 4-5 positions available.
so when the 4-5 are selected the other 2-3 will be told sorry your unsuccessful, basically good luck and off you go.

Is there not something illegal about this? are there not minimum terms this?

if these 2 or 3 people are unsuccessful with the (Re)interview and have been there at least 1 to 5 years surely they can not just cut them off ??

Perfectly legal.

What they will reapply to will not be their old roles but new once (i.e. they will have slightly changed job descriptions); hence the whole department is made redundant and the company can select who to hire back. The people not hired will get the standard redundancy/notice period etc. as usual.

I've gone through it myself twice in four years (and thankfully was successfull both times).

professore

Snookered wrote: »

Is there not something illegal about this? are there not minimum terms this?

Nothing illegal in this country. In most other countries in the EU it would be illegal but not here. It made me laugh to see "workers rights" as one of the anti-Lisbon campaigners pillars but that's WAAAY off topic (sorry).

Snookered wrote: »

if these 2 or 3 people are unsuccessful with the (Re)interview and have been there at least 1 to 5 years surely they can not just cut them off ??

Yes they can if they pay statutory redundancy (which is a pittance) and give minimum notice. Was through all this myself at the end of the .com boom in 2001. If there's no work for you you have very few rights, and if you try to fight for these imagine the reference you will get and be branded a troublemaker. Harsh but true.

Enright

Any update on your mate? did he retain his job?

Snookered

Nody wrote: »

Perfectly legal.

What they will reapply to will not be their old roles but new once (i.e. they will have slightly changed job descriptions); hence the whole department is made redundant and the company can select who to hire back. The people not hired will get the standard redundancy/notice period etc. as usual.

I've gone through it myself twice in four years (and thankfully was successfull both times).

Thanks Nody,
yeah that sounds eaxctly like what they are doing.
Making very minute changes to the roles, spreading a bit work amongst the new roles.

Ahh well, fingers crossed he can pull it off and hang in there.

Snookered

Enright wrote: »

Any update on your mate? did he retain his job?

Will know early next week, hopefully will be good news,
But still you have to feel for the poor other peeps that don't make it

Thanks for all the replies guys n' gals will post update next week

Nody

I'd guess your mate has a decent to good chance to keep it; it is usually used to clear out older employees (several wage increases/more benefits etc.) then the "new" guys who're cheaper to the company as crass as it is to say. In rare cases it is used to toss out someone incompetent/"dangerous" (i.e. filed complaints, complained about discrimination etc.) individual but this is more likly to backfire.