Redundancy Packages

[Ginnadinho]

Hi All,

I'm new to this forum but a friend suggested LegalBeagles, so I thought I'd have a look and it certainly seems a great place to potentially get some advice

I work for an international law firm, within the IT Department, based and working out of a UK office.

Recently, The Firm has announced that it is moving it's IT Operations (along with some other non-legal depts.) to Central Europe, in order to "re-centre their services" (cost-cutting). We have been told in Group Consultation that we will receive redundancy pay in-line with government guidelines but are expected to work until the end of the year. With the 'new' European operations starting in the new year.

Following the 'ball-park' figures given for redundancy packages to all staff, The Firm announced they would be keeping the current setup in place until April 2017, with redundancy packages remaining the same (pro-rata). The packages were basically the following:

Worked for less than 2 years - a month's pay
Worked for 2-4 years - 3 months pay
Worked for more than 4 years - same as above, 3 months pay (A little tight, given I have worked for over 12 years and some for 25+ years)

The above is OK (I suppose), but my issue is now regarding 'voluntary redundancy'.

The Firm have said that if staff wish to leave before the April changeover, they can do, provided they have a new job offer elsewhere etc - then The Firm are happy to pay pro-rata redundancy pay to those wishing to leave earlier. The Firm has since said that this 'option' will only be applicable to "the first come, first served" couple of staff...whereas Everybody cannot be given the same 'option' as they want to ensure they keep enough staff to run IT Operations before the new office comes online next year.
Some managers have also stated that some employees' personal circumstances may be brought into the equation (i.e. 'Person X has just got a new mortgage...so they'd probably have first refusal of early redundancy...')

So my question is one of legality and fairness. Does the above (some employees can take early redundancy if they get a job offer, whereas everyone else has to stay working in an awful environment where everyone is on a go-slow until their job 'ends') - or are The Firm quoting from some imaginary Employment Law?

I'm just struggling to understand or even except that this is a moral, correct or even legal way to act. Surely all employees (we all do the same job role/title) should be given the same opportunities re: leaving The Firm early and still maintaining their redundancy pay?

I have also been offered a 'potential' new role within The Firm, but the salary, contract length and job description have not been decided as yet. I have been told that taking this (potentially temporary) role would negate any redundancy due to me, as it is a new role in The Firm - I am would not be made redundant. I understand this - therefore do not wish to take up that role.

Any assistance or clarity on this issue would be of huge benefit to me. The Firm have offered legal advice to the employees...but I have a sneaking suspicion this would be a Lawyer from The Firm, not external/unbiased.

Please do ask me for any information you may need and I will try my very best to post it ASAP

Many, many thanks in advance,
Simon

[ostell]

Re: Redundancy Packages

Will this help?

So for 12 years then 3 months looks about right. More than that it's not but then there are limits on the sums.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Redundancy Packages

Hi All,

I'm new to this forum but a friend suggested LegalBeagles, so I thought I'd have a look and it certainly seems a great place to potentially get some advice

I work for an international law firm, within the IT Department, based and working out of a UK office.

Recently, The Firm has announced that it is moving it's IT Operations (along with some other non-legal depts.) to Central Europe, in order to "re-centre their services" (cost-cutting). We have been told in Group Consultation that we will receive redundancy pay in-line with government guidelines but are expected to work until the end of the year. With the 'new' European operations starting in the new year.

Following the 'ball-park' figures given for redundancy packages to all staff, The Firm announced they would be keeping the current setup in place until April 2017, with redundancy packages remaining the same (pro-rata). The packages were basically the following:

Worked for less than 2 years - a month's pay
Worked for 2-4 years - 3 months pay
Worked for more than 4 years - same as above, 3 months pay (A little tight, given I have worked for over 12 years and some for 25+ years)

The above is OK (I suppose), but my issue is now regarding 'voluntary redundancy'.

The Firm have said that if staff wish to leave before the April changeover, they can do, provided they have a new job offer elsewhere etc - then The Firm are happy to pay pro-rata redundancy pay to those wishing to leave earlier. The Firm has since said that this 'option' will only be applicable to "the first come, first served" couple of staff...whereas Everybody cannot be given the same 'option' as they want to ensure they keep enough staff to run IT Operations before the new office comes online next year.
Some managers have also stated that some employees' personal circumstances may be brought into the equation (i.e. 'Person X has just got a new mortgage...so they'd probably have first refusal of early redundancy...')

So my question is one of legality and fairness. Does the above (some employees can take early redundancy if they get a job offer, whereas everyone else has to stay working in an awful environment where everyone is on a go-slow until their job 'ends') - or are The Firm quoting from some imaginary Employment Law?

I'm just struggling to understand or even except that this is a moral, correct or even legal way to act. Surely all employees (we all do the same job role/title) should be given the same opportunities re: leaving The Firm early and still maintaining their redundancy pay?

I have also been offered a 'potential' new role within The Firm, but the salary, contract length and job description have not been decided as yet. I have been told that taking this (potentially temporary) role would negate any redundancy due to me, as it is a new role in The Firm - I am would not be made redundant. I understand this - therefore do not wish to take up that role.

Any assistance or clarity on this issue would be of huge benefit to me. The Firm have offered legal advice to the employees...but I have a sneaking suspicion this would be a Lawyer from The Firm, not external/unbiased.

Please do ask me for any information you may need and I will try my very best to post it ASAP

Many, many thanks in advance,
Simon

I think it's important to define 'the couple of staff' from everybody else. The rule is that for any redundancy there must be a full consultation either with the employees or via the union but it must be adequate. Other than that the tribunal will not usually interfere with a business decision which includes voluntary employment. It just depends how unreasonable the employer is. The offer to find alternative employment and therein a redundancy candidate automatically is fair as it gives every one a fighting chance to find another role. It's competitive yes, but what else can the employer do? If you however are offered a job within the company and it's not suitable, ie a different employ responsibilities, perhaps even much lower pay, it may be unfair dismissal if you don't take the job, as I understand it.

[Ginnadinho]

Re: Redundancy Packages

Many thanks for your replies, OpenLaw. I'll have a read through the website and speak with some colleagues.

I will post back with how we got on with the info above.

Many thanks again for your help, I'm lost when it comes to stuff like this :-)
Simon

[Nomoneynoproblem]

Re: Redundancy Packages

Hi

From my reading it looks like the whole operation will be transfereed to Central Europe and your company has introduced a voluntary redundacy scheme that is more than the statutory requirement and can allow people to go on securing new employment. There is nothing unfair about this however, if you wanted to leave and your employer then says no that's when it becomes unfair.

Secondly, if you were to take on a new role then it should be seen "as suitable alternative employment" with a 4week trial built in. After the 4 weeks trial the role becomes unsuitable you should be able to walk with your redundancy package in tact.

I hope this helps.

Kind Regards

NMNP