Redundancy pay and applying for my own job.
KF
different angle I think.
I work in local government in a team of four - we've been told our team is
reducing to three and that we must all apply for our own jobs. I've been
told that if I refuse to apply I may forfeit any claim to redundancy pay.
It seems to me that an offer of an opportunity to apply for a job is not the
same thing as an offer of a job itself, and that either my employer is
making me redundant and then giving me the opportunity to re-apply, or it is
keeping me in my post. Otherwise I cannot see where the point is at which an
application is deemed to have happened - is a piece of paper with only my
name on an application?
Any pointers gratefully received as the redundancy pay is currently the more
attractive option!
Thanks
KotF
Christopher Bowlas
> This is similar to a question I saw here a few weeks ago, but from a
> different angle I think.
>
> I work in local government in a team of four - we've been told our team is
> reducing to three and that we must all apply for our own jobs. I've been
> told that if I refuse to apply I may forfeit any claim to redundancy pay.
IANAL and it seems downright odd.
I'd suggest that you all refuse and that you report the matter to your
union. Telling Her Majesty's tabloid press may also be helpful,
especially if you can prove that children or other animals may suffer
as a result of staff reductions.
Robin
> the more attractive option!
>
redundant in such circumstances it is open to them to use various
methods to do so. One is to ask employees to apply for their own jobs.
If you do not apply you have a job unless and until your employer makes
you redundant. See eg
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Redundancy/DG_10029832
But I don't know if there are twists on this - for example, if it is
possible that refusing to reapply for your job is a failure to carry out
your job on the basis that it is just a form of self-appraisal for
performance management. That said, you could always just make a real
hash of the application if you are keen to go.
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com
Humbug
wrote:
Have they actually offered voluntary redundancy?
If so, it might be a Good Idea to apply for it (BTDT).
OTOH I remember this happening at the BBC about 25 years ago.
One of the successful applicants was actually agressive towards
colleagues who congratulated him for having suceeded in applying for
his own job :-(
None of us had any sympathy for the applicant who failed.
--
Humbug
KF
"Humbug" <hum...@tofee.net> wrote in message
news:49dcb6trdkhafflsc...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:25:16 +0100, "KF" <kenny...@hotmail.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>>I work in local government in a team of four - we've been told our team is
>>reducing to three and that we must all apply for our own jobs. I've been
>>told that if I refuse to apply I may forfeit any claim to redundancy pay.
>>
No - in fact it now appears that at this point there won't be redundancies -
"surplus" people will be put into a pool - these people will then be "at
risk" of redundancy later (probably when the plans to make the redundancy
terms less favourable have gone through). If we refuse to apply we may
forfeit any redundancy pay at that point apparently as we will have "failed
to engage with the process".
I did come across this site and I must admit that it doesn't appear to be as
clear-cut as I'd hoped.
http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/there_has_been_a_reorganisation_can_i
It appears that it may come down to whether a Tribunal would uphold "failure
to engage with the process" as a substantial reason for dismissal.
> --
> Humbug
KotF
Humbug
wrote:
That goes against the grain for me. I volunteered for redundancy four
times before I was finally accepted in the fifth wave, and then it was
only because of a technicality about how the Human Resources
department had worded the criteria on that occasion.
Human Resources, not Personnel. We ceased to be persons years ago, and
are now simply a resource.
So now they're trying to avoid paying redundancy payment to employees
to who don't volunteer?
They've got you over a barrel.
You are going to have to apply for your own job, but if you don't pass
the board you could be out on your ear.
That is appalling.
--
Humbug
Big Les Wade
>No - in fact it now appears that at this point there won't be
>redundancies - "surplus" people will be put into a pool - these people
>will then be "at risk" of redundancy later (probably when the plans to
>make the redundancy terms less favourable have gone through). If we
>refuse to apply we may forfeit any redundancy pay at that point
>apparently as we will have "failed to engage with the process".
The only thing your contract says you have to do is your work. You don't
have to "engage with any processes" that are designed to lead to your
dismissal.
If your contract says you are entitled to redundancy pay then you are
entitled to it when you are made redundant. Anything else is a breach of
contract; or if they dismiss you, it's unfair dismissal.
>I did come across this site and I must admit that it doesn't appear to
>be as clear-cut as I'd hoped.
>
>http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/there_has_been_a_reorganisation_can_i
>
>It appears that it may come down to whether a Tribunal would uphold
>"failure to engage with the process" as a substantial reason for
>dismissal.
Appears from where? From what your employer says? Don't believe them,
employers *always* mislead their employees in these circumstances.
--
Les
Anyone regularly attending or organising protests should expect to be of
interest to the state.
tim....
Actually, I think that they are trying to avoid paying redundancy to people
who effectively DO volunteer (by refusing to re-apply). I can't believe for
one minute that an ET would rule this as "refusing to engage with the
process", BICBW.
tim
KF
"Big Les Wade" <L...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ppeERDCbI$uMF...@obviously.invalid...
> KF <kenny...@hotmail.invalid> posted
>>It appears that it may come down to whether a Tribunal would uphold
>>"failure to engage with the process" as a substantial reason for
>>dismissal.
>
> Appears from where? From what your employer says? Don't believe them,
> employers *always* mislead their employees in these circumstances.
By "appears" I meant that it's my interpretation of what that site says - ie
you cannot be made to apply, but if you don't you may be dismissed. You may
claim that to be an unfair dismissal, but "Your employer's defence against
such a claim would probably be that you were dismissed for 'some other
substantial reason', a potentially fair reason for dismissal."
and in defining a "substantial reason":
"There are five statutory fair reasons for which an employer can dismiss
you. However, if the reason is not one of the five, but you were dismissed
for some other substantial reason, the dismissal may also be far [sic]. The
legal phrase is "substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the
dismissal of an employee holding the position which that employee held".
Tribunals will judge each case on its merits."
I took that to mean that a Tribunal would need to uphold "failure to engage
with the process" as a substantial reason for dismissal. Maybe it just means
your employer may invent some other excuse to get rid of you.
> --
> Les
> Anyone regularly attending or organising protests should expect to be of
> interest to the state.
KotF