|
|
FOAK: Redundancy Law
|
No it's not bike related but this topic is covered from time to time...
My company is going through a 'restructuring' and I am being asked to
transfer into a different team as my role is no longer covered by my
current team. In fact, my current role is being broken up and shared
amongst 4 or 5 people. If I do transfer then I won't be doing what I do
now, but more of a general project management type thing which I'd hate.
|
As a matter of interest, why would you hate it? I've been moving more
and more into PM (though still doing the techie bit occasionally -
about 85% /15% PM vs tech) and I am enjoying it and would like it to
continue [1] - key points for me personally are I'm working much more
with people (which I actually enjoy) but I'm also getting to use much
more generic skills (planning, negotiation, strategy,communication
[2],business understanding etc) than I would in my previous direction
and I also don't have to learn something new every two weeks.
I think the tech knowledge I have is very useful but I really want to
move on from that now.
|
I really don't want to stay any longer but I don't want them to know that
as several years of service here means that I could expect a generous
|
In pretty much exactly the same boat at the moment.
|
redundancy package.
How do I state that my role is redundant and so ensure that my employer
lets me take redundacy?
|
I'm not sure it's for you to state - it's for your employer BICBW.
[1] think I may have issues here when I come to find a new job though
as whilst I have successfully PM'd (and delivered) two pretty big
projects I suspect I will be viewed as having "insufficient experience"
- especially as no bits of paper backing it up. Limbo land :-(
[2] somehow this doesn't translate well to my interactions in UKRM :-)
|
|
I'm no expert on this either, but I'm currently working my redundancy
notice, and this is how it works at Severn Trent Water (which is a
truly wonderful company[1]):
They can offer you 'redeployment', which is any job they think you can
do which carries equivalent rank & salary. If you refuse this
redeployment offer then they don't have to pay you a bean.
If you consider the redeployment offer is 'unreasonable' (e.g.
significantly increased travelling to/from work), then you can appeal
against their decision.
IOW, sadly, you're probably stuffed.
[1] In order to qualify for a decent redundancy payout I have had to
sign a 'compromise agreement', which (amongst other things) prevents me
from saying anything detrimental to the Company - if I do they can claw
back everything everything they are paying me above the statutory
redundancy pay.
|
|
Sure you want to?
It may not pay that well after all
|
Depends on SS's T&Cs of employment. From the implication SS will not be
getting the statutory minimum.
|
Employees are paid for each period in which they were in a particular age
band.
The payments for each of these periods should be calculated and then added
together.
The age bands and respective entitlements are as follows:
a.. Employees between 18 and 22 years old are entitled to half a week's
pay for each complete year of employment;
b.. Employees between 22 and 41 years old are entitled to one week's pay
for each complete year of employment;
c.. Employees over 41 but less than 65 years old are entitled to one and a
half week's pay for each complete year of employment;
d.. There is a maximum of 20 years of employment for the purpose of the
redundancy payment calculation.
Employees may be entitled to higher payments if their contracts of
employment provide for this.
Ready Reckoner here
|
That's statutory minimum. Most decent companies pay significantly
more than this.
|
but not guaranteed unless quoted in contract
|
A colleague of mine was telling me today that if a company has previously
paid, say, 3 weeks per year of service then they are obliged to keep
paying that much: they can't give some people 3 weeks and others just 1.
|
|
|
We've had this conversation before. Siemens, frex, pay statutory minimum
and expect you to work your guts out whilst on notice.
|
What they expect and what they get are two different things,
especially if the tight gits are only paying statutory.
|
Mm. Depends whether you need a reference, of course.
|
I know someone who was given a very poor reference from their ex-boss
because he was a complete tosser and took them leaving very personally.
|
My ex manager filled in a security reference form incorrectly because
he thought he was being funny. I had to provide references from
employers over the last 3 years and he said I'd worked for them 2.5
years instead of the 8 years it really was.
When I told the agency (a nasty government one) what he'd done they
told me not to worry because they knew what to do in cases like that.
I hope they shat all over the worthless tosser.
|
The hiring company just asked for clarification and then ignored it.
I think not hiring someone on the basis of a reference is a bit of a
naff way of doing things - the interview process should decide
suitability, not the reference.
|
Absolutely - but I've had at least three employers take up *telephone*
references, which is even more dodgy than written ones, if someone gets
arsy.
|
Policy is that I'm not allowed to give references. All references are
handled by HR.
|
Good practice IMV. A reference should only confirm facts such as dates of
employment etc. Any subjective assessment of a candidate's ability to
perform a job should be done by the prospective employer through interview
etc.
|
I've had employers ask for a customer reference, which has actually worked
in my favour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe it's that straightforward.
If they can argue that the role isn't completely different I think they
are free to do this with you; you can always leave if you don't like it.
Ain't it grand being a wage-serf.
However I'm happy to admit I could be wrong... wouldn't be the first
time.
|
|
Friend of mine did this, and was in pretty well the same situation as you.
It was a material change to her conditions. The way she achieved it - and
the nice pay off! - was to raise it as a formal grievance procedure
initially, on the grounds that her actual role had been dispensed with. I
think she may also have muttered the words "constructive dismissal" later
on. It didn't go near a tribunal, or owt like that, the grievance process
worked. If you like, I'll see if I can dig out the info she found.
|
Sounds about right, but I'm of the opinion that invoking procedures and
mentioning your statutory rights _as an opening gambit_ can be a recipe for
disaster. These things can generally be worked out by having a
professional, grown-up chat about the situation, and devising an amicable
divorce.
Then again, SS may work for London Underground, so the key is probably to
have a tube strike or something.
|
|
|
|