26/10/2011 10:03:49
Vic Bhouy
Posts: 2
|
I am seeking some advice regarding an employment related situation that I am experiencing... and it is a little complex, but I shall try to explain it plainly and concisely!
I and 10 colleagues have recently gone through a TUPE process as our company has a new owner and will transfer our department to one over 100 miles away from where we live.
We were told that it was not a redundancy situation as our jobs would still exist, albeit, over 100 miles away.
No one has a mobility clause in their contracts... and the nature of the job/salary means that it would not be practical to move with the job.
Although the company insisted that it was not a redundancy situation, they offered an enhanced severance payment for anyone who 'opted out'. By opting out a person was, essentially resigning/making themselves voluntarily unemployed... and as such, I believe that they would then be unable to claim any sort of unemployment benefit, mortgage protection insurance or employment protection insurance!
When this was pointed out to the employers they responded by saying that if we asked them, they would state on our records that the reason for leaving was 'Redundancy' even though, legally, it isn't redundancy!
Those opting-out would also need to sign a compromise agreement.
My real concern is over the notion that a my employer is willing to record 'redundancy' as the reason for leaving when, according to them, it isn't a redundancy situation!
Is the company not guilty of fraud or encouraging fraud, as when people claim benefits or employment insurance and state the reason for their unemployment is 'redundancy' that that is actually a lie, as they have made themselves voluntarily unemployed.
Surely, morally, ethically, and legally that cannot be right, and unexceptable?
So, my question is, any company that acts as above... are they breaking any law?... can I or any colleague take civil court action against them?
Some of my colleagues have already opted-out and signed compromise agreements... I haven't... but, presumably, if when my colleagues claim any benefit and claim that they have been made redundant, they would actually be guilty of lying!
I would welcome your thoughts and advice on this, as it's been a dreadfully stressful period as I have deep moral and ethical issues over what seems to me a very underhand way of operating.
Feel very to ask any questions if something is not clear... I hope the above makes some sort of sense!
|
|
• permalink
• reply with quote
|
28/10/2011 21:47:59
www.clicklegalservices.co.uk
Administrator
Posts: 374
|
It seems to be a redundancy situation to me as they are closing the place of work down, or the place you work or they presumably require fewer employees and there is no mobility clause. They have to pay redundancy in accordance with the contract/statute as a bare minimum. If you do not consider it a redundancy situation or you somehow feel that the process they have used to select you or the procedure adopted was unfair, then you should consider a claim for unfair dismissal. This is probably the real reason for offering any enhanced package - to avoid any claims made.
|
|
• permalink
• reply with quote
|
31/10/2011 11:20:57
Vic Bhouy
Posts: 2
|
www.clicklegalservices.co.uk wrote:
It seems to be a redundancy situation to me as they are closing the place of work down, or the place you work or they presumably require fewer employees and there is no mobility clause. They have to pay redundancy in accordance with the contract/statute as a bare minimum. If you do not consider it a redundancy situation or you somehow feel that the process they have used to select you or the procedure adopted was unfair, then you should consider a claim for unfair dismissal. This is probably the real reason for offering any enhanced package - to avoid any claims made.
Thank you for your reply... I think you are correct, it should be a redundancy situation, but my employer is steadfastly insisting that it's not, nor can it be because of TUPE.
I think that they are misleading us into thinking that we only have two options... either 'opt-out' which means that I am voluntarily making myself unemployed or report for work in the new location over 100 miles away.
I have a employment protection insurance and I would jeopardise this if I, in effect, resigned.
It is my believe that my employer should also be explaining that there is a third option... redundancy... but they adamanly refuse to accept that redundancy is an option... even though I have spoke with ACAS several times... and they say what you say... they should offer redundancy.
My employer seems to be using the 'fear of losing any severence' as a way of enticing us to 'opt out'.
If I opt-out and then find that my insurance company refuses to honour the policy because I have made myself voluntarily redundant by resigning am I able to take any sort of legal action against my employer because they have not offered redundany as an option when they should have?
To me, it seems like they are purposely wanting us to think that we cannot be made redundant and if we want any severence pay-out then we had better opt out or end up with nothing!
|
|
• permalink
• reply with quote
|
Powered by AspNetForum 6.5.7.0
© 2006-2010 Jitbit Software