(Unfair) dismissal or redundancy?

[Eloise01]

Re: (Unfair) dismissal or redundancy?

In light of your delight in crystal ball gazing - which generally never gets very far - but you have checked the clawback term for what happens if you are dismissed and /or made redundant? Generally such clauses do not apply in the event of redundancy (although sometimes they do, and that is actually lawful), but they often do apply if the person is dismissed for any other reason. And don't shoot the messenger if that's what it says!

Alternatively, and by way of being only a suggestion, but some employers will waive the clawback (especially towards the end of the period) if the alternative may be to make redudancies that will cost them more money. But that's not law, that's just a possible negotiating point.

[The Debt Star]

Re: (Unfair) dismissal or redundancy?

If the employer happens to agree that the failure to meet targets is a result of lack of work and not incompetance.

Well of course the employer would want to argue its due to incompetence and not lack of work because they have to pay out money on a redundancy. THAT the employer will do anything to avoid.

To the OP: have you considered joining Prospect? It's too late to get cover for any existing issues but membership will cover you for future problems of this kind. Even if its with the existing employer provided you ride this rough patch out.

[Eloise01]

Re: (Unfair) dismissal or redundancy?

Well of course the employer would want to argue its due to incompetence and not lack of work because they have to pay out money on a redundancy. THAT the employer will do anything to avoid.

To the OP: have you considered joining Prospect? It's too late to get cover for any existing issues but membership will cover you for future problems of this kind. Even if its with the existing employer provided you ride this rough patch out.

They may. It's a mistake to ascribe motivations to employers though - they do the damnedest things for the damnedest reasons at times. I don't know what kind of law the OP deals with, but in a sense she is correct - it does operate "uniquely" and sometimes in the damnedest ways. Do you know what "fair" means; "objective"; "reasonable"? Because employment law is littered with words like this, and it often means what it means, depending on the exact circumstances in which it means it. How long is a piece of string can be easier to answer than what would a tribunal decide - and if you don't even know what the employer is going to do in the first place....

I do agree that if the OP isn't in a union, joining one is a good idea (it's always a good idea!) but I think that joining the best one for their own circumstances is best - there may be a good union in the workplace, or the local organisation of a particular union may be stronger in one place than another, or industry specific knowledge in a union may be important. One that is recommended by a stranger on a webiste may be great for them or in their area, but not necessarily the right choice for them.

But on a different matter - I note that you and Flaming Parrot are both members of the "I got banned" Club. I find that although I was not so notified, and the site administrators seem remarkably coy in not actually labelling my posts as such (which they are supposed to do) I have been banned from a site also. May I enquire how I join? I'm not naturally a "joiner", but I feel that this deserves recognition for the sheer effort I made!!!

[sassy626]

Re: (Unfair) dismissal or redundancy?

In light of your delight in crystal ball gazing - which generally never gets very far - but you have checked the clawback term for what happens if you are dismissed and /or made redundant? Generally such clauses do not apply in the event of redundancy (although sometimes they do, and that is actually lawful), but they often do apply if the person is dismissed for any other reason. And don't shoot the messenger if that's what it says!

Alternatively, and by way of being only a suggestion, but some employers will waive the clawback (especially towards the end of the period) if the alternative may be to make redudancies that will cost them more money. But that's not law, that's just a possible negotiating point.

I never shoot the messenger - most of my job is being the messenger!

I know the position on this. See - your crystal ball does work! Yes, we have so called good leaver and bad leaver provisions and redundancy is good leaver (as is retirement - useful to many maternity returners, I'm sure) so there is no clawback. Dismissal is bad leaver (of course). Just to add to the general cheer, I have cautiously maintained income protection insurance for a few years now and this of course will not apply if I am dismissed. But you perhaps see why I am quite so concerned about the "what if" and what to do what I can in advance to protect my position.

Waiver - my employer? If we get to that stage and it's relevant I'll start to raise it but if we get to my firm's year end without the worst happening then I should get through (would I be entitled to notice) to the nine months.

By the way, you mentioned Eggbound in an earlier post. I thought it was caselaw so I looked it up. Your reply to him on 13 January included "Advice after the fact is never as good as advice before it". A motto I live by. I'm off to find that one again and thank you for that post :-)

[sassy626]

Re: (Unfair) dismissal or redundancy?

I've never heard of Prospect. Assume from Eloise's response that it is a union? I'm quite bewildered by unions I'll be honest, never heard of anyone operating in my er... industry being in one. It's just not done - not even sure if it is possible or appropriate.

I do agree with you about my employer though Debt Star although I agree that such speculation is a bit pointless.

Funnily enough, I was going to ask "fair to whom" in response to one of Eloise's previous posts.

[The Debt Star]

Re: (Unfair) dismissal or redundancy?

I've never heard of Prospect. Assume from Eloise's response that it is a union? I'm quite bewildered by unions I'll be honest, never heard of anyone operating in my er... industry being in one. It's just not done - not even sure if it is possible or appropriate.

It's a union for professionals in white collar jobs. The moral support alone is worth the £14 monthly subs. Email support on employment related legal issues and a designated rep. You can be the only member from your company who joins, no matter. I happen to be the only member where I am.

Just a thought, so you don't feel quite so isolated.

[The Debt Star]

Re: (Unfair) dismissal or redundancy?

on a different matter - I note that you and Flaming Parrot are both members of the "I got banned" Club. I find that although I was not so notified, and the site administrators seem remarkably coy in not actually labelling my posts as such (which they are supposed to do) I have been banned from a site also. May I enquire how I join? I'm not naturally a "joiner", but I feel that this deserves recognition for the sheer effort I made!!!

By all means. Membership is honorary and we'd be honoured to have you

[Eloise01]

Re: (Unfair) dismissal or redundancy?

I never shoot the messenger - most of my job is being the messenger!

I know the position on this. See - your crystal ball does work! Yes, we have so called good leaver and bad leaver provisions and redundancy is good leaver (as is retirement - useful to many maternity returners, I'm sure) so there is no clawback. Dismissal is bad leaver (of course). Just to add to the general cheer, I have cautiously maintained income protection insurance for a few years now and this of course will not apply if I am dismissed. But you perhaps see why I am quite so concerned about the "what if" and what to do what I can in advance to protect my position.

Waiver - my employer? If we get to that stage and it's relevant I'll start to raise it but if we get to my firm's year end without the worst happening then I should get through (would I be entitled to notice) to the nine months.

By the way, you mentioned Eggbound in an earlier post. I thought it was caselaw so I looked it up. Your reply to him on 13 January included "Advice after the fact is never as good as advice before it". A motto I live by. I'm off to find that one again and thank you for that post :-)

Ah, but that bit didn't take a crystal ball, just some information that I wasn't in posession of earlier! And I really do understand your concerns, I always have. It is just that other than the obvious "collect evidence", employment law is so perverse in its operation, even before you throw employers into the equation, that predictions are really hard to do, and past your employer could choose to make you redundant or they could begin capability proceedings, a bit hard tp say. They could also start looking for people posting on Facebook or other social media (fast becoming one of the fastest ways to get dismissed), knick the office stationary, or ring their husbands on the works telephone (or on their own phone in works time)! That's the problem with employers - they often ignore the obvious and go for the devious. I recall the infamous case, not one I was directly connected with, where a very large employer (a Council) sacked a Director for fraud on his mileage claim. The amount of the "fraudulent claim" - I believe it was £1.12. Or some such ridiculous sum - I am not out by more than 25p either way. Even more worrying - he lost his tribunal claim. Now I am pretty sure that the Council wanted him gone and were looking for a route to achieve it. But not even my crystal ball would have come up with that one!

So if your employer is looking to cut costs / employees, there is no "expected" route - and if your employers do what I think they do, they may be amongst the most likely to neither make people redundant or try capability processes (which take a long time actually). They are much more likley to do the unexpected.

PS. Edit - yes, I agree that advice before the fact is better than advice after the fact - but in this case it was advice before you (or he!) do something that isn't what you thought it was! If he had told anyone what he was planning and why, he'd have been told that it wouldn't produce the expected result. But he didn't, and it didn't.

[Eloise01]

Re: (Unfair) dismissal or redundancy?

By all means. Membership is honorary and we'd be honoured to have you

My thanks - it's years since I have had time to join anything fun! Hope this signature thing works!

[labman]

Re: (Unfair) dismissal or redundancy?

Can I be an honorary member as well, as I've been banned from two sites, each time more than once?

[Eloise01]

Re: (Unfair) dismissal or redundancy?

Can I be an honorary member as well, as I've been banned from two sites, each time more than once?

Oh it's getting less exclusive by the minute! It'll be bigger than the LibDem Party at this rate!

[labman]

Re: (Unfair) dismissal or redundancy?

Oh it's getting less exclusive by the minute! It'll be bigger than the LibDem Party at this rate!

I think it already is!

[FlamingParrot]

Re: (Unfair) dismissal or redundancy?

Can I be an honorary member as well, as I've been banned from two sites, each time more than once?

I was also banned from *that* other site, also more than once! So double membership for me as well

[sassy626]

Re: (Unfair) dismissal or redundancy?

Ah, but that bit didn't take a crystal ball, just some information that I wasn't in posession of earlier! And I really do understand your concerns, I always have. It is just that other than the obvious "collect evidence", employment law is so perverse in its operation, even before you throw employers into the equation, that predictions are really hard to do, and past your employer could choose to make you redundant or they could begin capability proceedings, a bit hard tp say. They could also start looking for people posting on Facebook or other social media (fast becoming one of the fastest ways to get dismissed), knick the office stationary, or ring their husbands on the works telephone (or on their own phone in works time)! That's the problem with employers - they often ignore the obvious and go for the devious. I recall the infamous case, not one I was directly connected with, where a very large employer (a Council) sacked a Director for fraud on his mileage claim. The amount of the "fraudulent claim" - I believe it was £1.12. Or some such ridiculous sum - I am not out by more than 25p either way. Even more worrying - he lost his tribunal claim. Now I am pretty sure that the Council wanted him gone and were looking for a route to achieve it. But not even my crystal ball would have come up with that one!

So if your employer is looking to cut costs / employees, there is no "expected" route - and if your employers do what I think they do, they may be amongst the most likely to neither make people redundant or try capability processes (which take a long time actually). They are much more likley to do the unexpected.

Ha - I did actually check before posting this thread even that my employers really quite progressive internet usage and social media policies have not changed :-) You're quite right though - it would be the things I don't think about which catch me out! Thank you for the discussion - it has helped and oddly calmed me too.

[Eloise01]

Re: (Unfair) dismissal or redundancy?

.... and oddly calmed me too.

And actually that was really what I was trying to say, but I find that when I tell uncalm people to calm down, it has the opposite effect. I know that I am often blunt and don't do tea and sympathy well. A former colleague tells me recently that it is because her end of the profession is to win clients and repeat business; whereas mine is all about winning, and I don't really care whether my clients like me or not because I won't ever see them again. That isn't entirely true - my clients actually like me a lot (admittedly, winning helps that!) and I have oft times had problems getting rid of them because they do keep popping back for tea (so at least the tea is ok, even if the sympathy isn't!).... But rambling there, the point is that you are more likely to make a mistake if you try to plan ahead in employment law, because you plan for what you think of and not what you don't. I have a number of friends who do real jobs, and the motto they live by is one that I tell them all the time - "collect evidence". It isn't about whether something will happen - most of them have no employment problems (beyond the norm) and never will have. But if something comes up, then the evidence is there. It's collected. Maybe that's a cynical way of approaching it - but it is the way that good employers approach it. They are "collecting evidence" all the time, it just isn't called evidence at the time they are collecting it. That doesn't mean it won't be evidence next year! Employees are well-advised to take the same approach. If all you end up with at retirement is a box full of paper you can burn (and you may need it to keep warm if the government carry on cutting pensions!) then all well and good. But the biggest issue that people have is that when things go wrong they have no evidence!