Tupe - Redunancy

[haventahybrid]

Hi PHer's

After some thoughts if anyone has any (I know this is not paid for professional advice, just the opinions of relative strangers on the internet).

-Joe Bloggs started work at Company A in 2007 on a full time contract

-2011 Company A outsourced a number of depts to Company B and Joe Bloggs was asked to tupe across as part of this change

-Joe Bloggs duly signed new contract as full time but then mid 2011 took maternity leave and returned after on a part time basis. No contract amendment made to reflect the new working hours

-2017 Company A moving premises and downsizing. Joe Bloggs surplass to requirements so to be offered redundancy.


Question: What can Joe Bloggs expect?

Breadvan?!?

[anothernameitist]

Does the company pay statutory redunancy or do they enhance the payment?

[edc]

The statutory redundancy calculator is readily available online. Otherwise expectation in terms of redundancy payment will depend on whether there are any contractual redundancy payments, custom and practice, or perhaps individual negotiation.

[Countdown]

haventahybrid said:

Hi PHer's

After some thoughts if anyone has any (I know this is not paid for professional advice, just the opinions of relative strangers on the internet).

-Joe Bloggs started work at Company A in 2007 on a full time contract

-2011 Company A outsourced a number of depts to Company B and Joe Bloggs was asked to tupe across as part of this change

-Joe Bloggs duly signed new contract as full time but then mid 2011 took maternity leave and returned after on a part time basis. No contract amendment made to reflect the new working hours

-2017 Company A moving premises and downsizing. Joe Bloggs surplass to requirements so to be offered redundancy.


Question: What can Joe Bloggs expect?

Breadvan?!?

Assuming Company only pays statutory minimum then, from 2007

half a week’s pay for each full year Josephine was under 22
one week’s pay for each full year Josephine was 22 or older, but under 41
one and half week’s pay for each full year Josephine was 41 or older
(pro-rata for the time she went parttime.)

Is josephine angling for the parttime period to be paid at full time on the grounds that no contract was signed?

[pauloroberto]

The statutory redundancy payment is based on the actual pay at the time of redundancy. No additional credit is given for the fact that Joe used to work full-time.
Also entitled to 10 weeks' notice, or a payment in lieu.

[haventahybrid]

pauloroberto said:

The statutory redundancy payment is based on the actual pay at the time of redundancy. No additional credit is given for the fact that Joe used to work full-time.
Also entitled to 10 weeks' notice, or a payment in lieu.

Assuming it is not enhanced and the minimal payment, are Company A obliged to pay anything or is it only company B having to pay roughly the minimum statutory of 7 years on a part time basis?

[edc]

haventahybrid said:

pauloroberto said:

The statutory redundancy payment is based on the actual pay at the time of redundancy. No additional credit is given for the fact that Joe used to work full-time.
Also entitled to 10 weeks' notice, or a payment in lieu.

Assuming it is not enhanced and the minimal payment, are Company A obliged to pay anything or is it only company B having to pay roughly the minimum statutory of 7 years on a part time basis?

The current employer pays. There is no longer a relationship with any previous employers.

[haventahybrid]

edc said:

haventahybrid said:

pauloroberto said:

The statutory redundancy payment is based on the actual pay at the time of redundancy. No additional credit is given for the fact that Joe used to work full-time.
Also entitled to 10 weeks' notice, or a payment in lieu.

Assuming it is not enhanced and the minimal payment, are Company A obliged to pay anything or is it only company B having to pay roughly the minimum statutory of 7 years on a part time basis?

The current employer pays. There is no longer a relationship with any previous employers.

Thank you!

[Beetnik]

If she works through this:

https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-redundancy-pay

she'll find the minimum she'll get.

[JayBM]

A couple of points, and Breadvan would be the one to confirm:

• My understanding is that length of service is maintained with TUPE, so any redundancy from Company B would be calculated based on 10 years of service.

• You say she is being made redundant due to a move and downsizing in Company A? However she doesn't work for Company A any more. Whilst Company B may well have followed the correct process in terms of redundancy it would not be as simple as saying "you used to work for Company A and therefore we, Company B, are making you redundant."

[Gargamel]

JayBM said:

A couple of points, and Breadvan would be the one to confirm:

• My understanding is that length of service is maintained with TUPE, so any redundancy from Company B would be calculated based on 10 years of service.

• You say she is being made redundant due to a move and downsizing in Company A? However she doesn't work for Company A any more. Whilst Company B may well have followed the correct process in terms of redundancy it would not be as simple as saying "you used to work for Company A and therefore we, Company B, are making you redundant."

I agree with the first point,

On the second - it is reasonable typical for companies to OFFER redundancy when moving / relocating offices. The OP doesn't make it clear whether it is compulsory redundancy or a scheme. Nor if the Company have gone through a consultation process, which would probably be necessary if they a making a number of positions redundant

The OP refers to the lack of a new contract confirming her part time status. Whilst this is sloppy admin fro the HR team, it won't make a difference to the amount offered. That would be based on current salary vs length of service. However it is still probably worth raising with the HR team as a potential point to negotiate on.

There is redundancy and redundancy in my view, some firms will want to protect their reputation, and will offer enhanced terms and negotiate individually with people. Others will plumb for a Stat minimum no discussion type of approach.

One thing they should offer, is money to cover your legal expenses to review any agreement.

[JayBM]

Gargamel said:

I agree with the first point,

On the second - it is reasonable typical for companies to OFFER redundancy when moving / relocating offices. The OP doesn't make it clear whether it is compulsory redundancy or a scheme. Nor if the Company have gone through a consultation process, which would probably be necessary if they a making a number of positions redundant

The OP refers to the lack of a new contract confirming her part time status. Whilst this is sloppy admin fro the HR team, it won't make a difference to the amount offered. That would be based on current salary vs length of service. However it is still probably worth raising with the HR team as a potential point to negotiate on.

There is redundancy and redundancy in my view, some firms will want to protect their reputation, and will offer enhanced terms and negotiate individually with people. Others will plumb for a Stat minimum no discussion type of approach.

One thing they should offer, is money to cover your legal expenses to review any agreement.

Agree there's not enough information to know for sure but the bit I was confused by was the OP states that it is Company A that is moving/down-sizing not Company B. But I guess it might be that whilst they are employed by Company B they may work in Company A's office and therefore the move would mean they need to move too and as you say they have therefore offered redundancy.

[haventahybrid]

Gargamel said:

JayBM said:

A couple of points, and Breadvan would be the one to confirm:

• My understanding is that length of service is maintained with TUPE, so any redundancy from Company B would be calculated based on 10 years of service.

• You say she is being made redundant due to a move and downsizing in Company A? However she doesn't work for Company A any more. Whilst Company B may well have followed the correct process in terms of redundancy it would not be as simple as saying "you used to work for Company A and therefore we, Company B, are making you redundant."

I agree with the first point,

On the second - it is reasonable typical for companies to OFFER redundancy when moving / relocating offices. The OP doesn't make it clear whether it is compulsory redundancy or a scheme. Nor if the Company have gone through a consultation process, which would probably be necessary if they a making a number of positions redundant

The OP refers to the lack of a new contract confirming her part time status. Whilst this is sloppy admin fro the HR team, it won't make a difference to the amount offered. That would be based on current salary vs length of service. However it is still probably worth raising with the HR team as a potential point to negotiate on.

There is redundancy and redundancy in my view, some firms will want to protect their reputation, and will offer enhanced terms and negotiate individually with people. Others will plumb for a Stat minimum no discussion type of approach.

One thing they should offer, is money to cover your legal expenses to review any agreement.

Thanks both,

Interesting to note that the whole length of service maybe taken into account. Consultations are due to begin next week. I suspect that within the contract between Company A and B there are some clauses for if Company A are to downsize and reduce the services / resources that Company B need to supply. What is clear though is that some services and therefore a reduced number of employees (company B) will relocate with Company A. It may be that redundancy is offered and if refused another role offered within the business made available.

Its a shame as Company A are definitely of the position that they want to protect their reputation and are offering very generous packages to their employees who have also been offered redundancy. Company B are notorious for being on the other end of that spectrum.

[haventahybrid]

JayBM said:

Gargamel said:

I agree with the first point,

On the second - it is reasonable typical for companies to OFFER redundancy when moving / relocating offices. The OP doesn't make it clear whether it is compulsory redundancy or a scheme. Nor if the Company have gone through a consultation process, which would probably be necessary if they a making a number of positions redundant

The OP refers to the lack of a new contract confirming her part time status. Whilst this is sloppy admin fro the HR team, it won't make a difference to the amount offered. That would be based on current salary vs length of service. However it is still probably worth raising with the HR team as a potential point to negotiate on.

There is redundancy and redundancy in my view, some firms will want to protect their reputation, and will offer enhanced terms and negotiate individually with people. Others will plumb for a Stat minimum no discussion type of approach.

One thing they should offer, is money to cover your legal expenses to review any agreement.

Agree there's not enough information to know for sure but the bit I was confused by was the OP states that it is Company A that is moving/down-sizing not Company B. But I guess it might be that whilst they are employed by Company B they may work in Company A's office and therefore the move would mean they need to move too and as you say they have therefore offered redundancy.

That's exactly it.

[JayBM]

haventahybrid said:

Interesting to note that the whole length of service maybe taken into account.

Probably just semantics but if it does come to redundancy, and I hope it doesn't, whole length of service MUST be taken in to account for statutory payment. That would also apply if length of service is used as part of any redundancy selection criteria.