How to get made redundant?

Avatar MIA

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

Jesus I thought I had worked with some insane people. This thread takes the biscuit. How did he all get jobs and keep them?

Not insane, just feelings of entitlement. 'I'm entitled to give employees a bad name'.

Creamy Goodness

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Not insane, just feelings of entitlement. 'I'm entitled to give employees a bad name'.

Yeah but the suggestion of photocopying a management book and highlighting things; I'd expect that from a transition year student who got a bad placement, actually, no they'd have more cop on.

knipex

St1mpMeister wrote: »

as evident by my vocal shouting matches with the patronising IT manager, and the relatively slow pace I'm working at since I'm frankly bored

Keep it up and the next step will be the start of the disciplinary process, and the end of a decent reference.

Bandana boy

It is very unlikely you could arrange a redundancy payment , You could though negotiate a golden handshake.
If your relationship with your manager is very poor and he does not have the bandwidth to manage you out a quick chat about your options could very well be fruitful.

Schedule a chat about your fractured relationship , say I would be ok with moving on but would need to find another job first , Say if i had a payment of X that would enable me to leave now and not suffer financially in the time it takes to find a new job and get me out of your hair faster.

Its certainly not a usual arrangement but i have seen it , in particular with Senior people who are making the workplace a tense environment but doing enough to avoid getting sacked /Have a Manager to busy to fully implement a PIP.

witchgirl26

OP why would you be so concerned about a bad reference - surely if you do your job and quit, there's nothing bad to be said as such (slightly ignoring the screaming matches you mention coz that's just seriously unprofessional). However if you take the p & do hardly anything and get fired, then that's going to look bad on any cv. IF redundancy was an option, you'd still need a reference from that employer as generally places want a reference from your last employer. And if they've fired you, do you think they'll give you a great reference? I know they can only say what's factual but sometimes how they put things and respond to questions, or don't respond, says more.

But like others have said, redundancy is only where the role no longer exists, not when they want to fire you. Which to be fair, it sounds like you're giving them grounds to. You won't get any special pay off for this, just your salary up to your end day.

If you want to leave a job, grow up & quit it. If you want to travel somewhere before seeing if you'd like to move there, save up a bit, save your annual leave from current job, quit the job, take the annual leave at the end & go live off your savings for a bit.

screamer

Attitude is equally important in securing a new role..... and managing people out will be cheaper than paying redundancy (and to a manager would be a more satisfactory and fair conclusion) to the rest of the team also....

Ash.J.Williams

St1mpMeister wrote: »

Thought that title would grab some attention :pac:

I'm in a dead-end job working in software and plan to leave soon, but my ideal situation would be if they let me go and I got redundancy payment (for which I qualify), as I plan to investigate working abroad and the redundancy would help cover costs while I travel around searching/interviewing.

My skillset is such that I'd have 0 trouble getting another job, but obviously I don't want a bad record on my references. I'm a senior dev with 15 years experience and the last time I put my CV on Monster.ie I received 40 calls in one day, so not too worried about getting other work in Ireland. The tricky part is that I'd like to work abroad so want time to travel there and see what the place is like before applying.


Now the company know I'm not happy in the job (as evident by my vocal shouting matches with the patronising IT manager, and the relatively slow pace I'm working at since I'm frankly bored), yet I am surprised they haven't yet pulled me aside to say it's not working out. I suspect they are expecting me to quit.

Is there a way to instil a seed of doubt in their minds that leads them to believe it would be better to get someone to replace me, that doesn't involve me blatantly being undisciplined (e.g. squatting over the IT manager's desk to take a dookie) ?

One idea I'm thinking of is just to tell them something not committal like "I MAY be scouting out other jobs as I don't feel my skillset is being utilised fully here". This would hopefully plant a seed of doubt in their mind to find someone more permanent before the next 6 month project kicks in.

Any other suggestions?

Ask for it... If they say no... Leave. You'd be better off.

devnull

Deleted User wrote: »

There are scenarios where people are managed out to avoid paying a redundancy but this isn't one of them.

This is certainly true and I have seen this happen at close quarters, where a number of people left suddenly and we were given the official line that they resigned with immediate effect directly after leaving work the previous day, plus there were a few unexplained people who were here one day and gone the next without any indication.

However this kind of thing doesn't tend to happen very often and tends to be in cases where management have tried to manage someone out and the employee has resisted this practice and is quite popular in the wider company and/or the team that they had been in and to manage them out more aggressively would possibly lead to disruption to the wider company or morale of teams etc.

It is why if you feel you are being managed out you should never resign no matter how hard you are pushed unless you have another job lined up, because if you stick it out long enough and you have support within the company from colleagues, most companies will know they tread a very tight line with respect to a possible constructive dismissal claim and won't want to take that risk and a settlement will normally be on offer which puts you in a good position to negotiate the terms.

It doesn't necessarily have to be because an employee is low performing or has bad attitude etc however, it happens for a variety of reasons, which can include personality clashes, the desire of a new manager to stamp their authority on a department and remove anyone who may dilute that or a former excellent employee who was once valuable but because of changes no longer is.

Unfortunately I've dealt with these issues both as a manager sitting in as a witness and note-taker on meetings where these things are discussed as well as someone who has been a witness on behalf of a colleague who was made an offer and I can tell you, that there certainly is a dirty side to HR as well as the positive all in HR is fair side that is portrayed.

screamer

devnull wrote: »

This is certainly true and I have seen this happen at close quarters, where a number of people left suddenly and we were given the official line that they resigned with immediate effect directly after leaving work the previous day, plus there were a few unexplained people who were here one day and gone the next without any indication.

However this kind of thing doesn't tend to happen very often and tends to be in cases where management have tried to manage someone out and the employee has resisted this practice and is quite popular in the wider company and/or the team that they had been in and to manage them out more aggressively would possibly lead to disruption to the wider company or morale of teams etc.

It is why if you feel you are being managed out you should never resign no matter how hard you are pushed unless you have another job lined up, because if you stick it out long enough and you have support within the company from colleagues, most companies will know they tread a very tight line with respect to a possible constructive dismissal claim and won't want to take that risk and a settlement will normally be on offer which puts you in a good position to negotiate the terms.

It doesn't necessarily have to be because an employee is low performing or has bad attitude etc however, it happens for a variety of reasons, which can include personality clashes, the desire of a new manager to stamp their authority on a department and remove anyone who may dilute that or a former excellent employee who was once valuable but because of changes no longer is.

Unfortunately I've dealt with these issues both as a manager sitting in as a witness and note-taker on meetings where these things are discussed as well as someone who has been a witness on behalf of a colleague who was made an offer and I can tell you, that there certainly is a dirty side to HR as well as the positive all in HR is fair side that is portrayed.

Generally someone who shouts at meetings, and starts on a go slow will be quick to lose any support of colleagues who will want to distance themselves from such hassle and feel it unfair that someone in a go slow is not taken to task.
I'd be very hesitant to advise anyone to rely on colleagues support in a situation like this.....

_Brian

I can't understand why they just don't give you a warning, initiate a PIP and manage you out of the company.

I've done it a few times.

devnull

All of this from a HR point of view.

St1mpMeister wrote: »

I'm in a dead-end job working in software and plan to leave soon, but my ideal situation would be if they let me go and I got redundancy payment (for which I qualify), as I plan to investigate working abroad and the redundancy would help cover costs while I travel around searching/interviewing.

You will not get a redundancy payment, you might get a settlement agreement but these do not get offered to everyone, but there are things that will help your chances of getting one, and things which you can do to make it more likely.

My skillset is such that I'd have 0 trouble getting another job.

If HR get the impression that you think that, it makes your chances of getting a settlement agreement much less. Generally companies are more likely to offer these if they think it's the only way you can move on, if you're saying you're going to get a job every five minutes they'll think why bother if you are soon going to leave anyway.

as evident by my vocal shouting matches with the patronising IT manager.

How bad are these shouting matches? What about with your other colleagues? Do you have a good reputation with them? What is your reputation like in the department as a whole?

Is there a way to instil a seed of doubt in their minds that leads them to believe it would be better to get someone to replace me, that doesn't involve me blatantly being undisciplined (e.g. squatting over the IT manager's desk to take a dookie)

If they are managing you out and you break any company terms and conditions or breach the disciplinary policy this will not help you, they will believe that if you carry on like this sooner or later they will be able to dismiss you via the disciplinary system, which again weakens your hand.

One idea I'm thinking of is just to tell them something not committal like "I MAY be scouting out other jobs as I don't feel my skillset is being utilised fully here". This would hopefully plant a seed of doubt in their mind to find someone more permanent before the next 6 month project kicks in.

Makes a settlement even less likely.

OP - getting a settlement is not common, the way the company will look at it, will basically come down to this

a) Can we get them to resign if we pressure him enough
b) Can we remove them through a disciplinary process without risking unfair dismissal

If the answer after trying to do both a) and b) for a while is NO, then there MAY be a CHANCE that they will be willing to offer a settlement, however even if the answer is NO to both of those, there are still other criteria that they will consider that may help/hinder your chances such as those I detailed above, but there are more.

devnull

screamer wrote: »

Generally someone who shouts at meetings, and starts on a go slow will be quick to lose any support of colleagues who will want to distance themselves from such hassle and feel it unfair that someone in a go slow is not taken to task.
I'd be very hesitant to advise anyone to rely on colleagues support in a situation like this.....

I wasn't referring to the OP in general - just the way it works in general in most cases.

_Brian wrote: »

I can't understand why they just don't give you a warning, initiate a PIP and manage you out of the company.

It realistically depends on what the person has done and the disciplinary process and what the acts of ill-discipline are, some people are clever in that they can be annoying and create problems whilst dancing right along, but not over the rules, however in this case, if the OP is having shouting matches with someone and it's witnessed by someone else they'd have no problems using a PIP and disciplinary process.

A PIP often is a tool to manage someone out of the company, but that happens right at the start and generally is not a quick process of managing someone else. Typically in my experience they last several weeks and from beginning to end it can take a few months to truly manage someone else, especially those who have strong will and are not going to resign easy, most companies try and drag it out as long as possible in the hope that the employee resigns and in most cases the employees do.

However, there are some employees who are able to drag it out for up to 4-5 months and in one case 6 months by using every trick in the book, and the longer the employee holds on for and avoids doing anything to go far along the disciplinary to be fired, are the ones who tend to get the settlements because the employer by the end is sick of managing someone out and just wants rid of them so are willing to pay them off to make the problem go away.

curlypat

i'm actually in a similar position. I work for a large company 200+ employees. i work within a team of 4 and am 6 months into disciplinary procedure of 24 months due to low perform within my job role. The spec of the job have become more technical than my capacity.

Redundancies are due this November however i hold very little hope of being made redundant due to being on corrective action. In my eyes why pay me money when they can sit it out and fire me in 18 months time...

as others have said they'll sit it out

devnull

curlypat wrote: »

i'm actually in a similar position. I work for a large company 200+ employees. i work within a team of 4 and am 6 months into disciplinary procedure of 24 months due to low perform within my job role. The spec of the job have become more technical than my capacity.

Redundancies are due this November however i hold very little hope of being made redundant due to being on corrective action. In my eyes why pay me money when they can sit it out and fire me in 18 months time...

as others have said they'll sit it out

How long have you been working for your company?

You say that it's a 24 month disciplinary process, how does that work? That is not something I have come across before, what does your company handbook say in relation to this?

From my experience if a manager wants a staff member out they are not going to wait anywhere near 18 months to achieve that in almost all cases unless there is one of only a very limited number of reasons I can think of.

thomasj

How to get made redundant?

Convince the powers to be that the office you work in is wastage and not needed!

I'm not sure your colleagues will thank you for it!

bennyineire

If you're as qualified and your role is in as high demand as you claim to be then you must be able to command a high salary.

Therefor grow up and be a big boy, start applying for other jobs and when you get offered the right one hand in your notice and move on.

That's the way I've always done it and I hazard a guess most people do.

Why do you feel "entitled" to a pay out just because you're not happy in your job.

Wanderer2010

Bandana boy wrote: »

Its certainly not a usual arrangement but i have seen it , in particular with Senior people who are making the workplace a tense environment but doing enough to avoid getting sacked /Have a Manager to busy to fully implement a PIP.

Wow, there are some real old school, as in dinosaur levels of management going on here. You do know that "managed out" and "PIP" are effectively bullying an employee out of their job? And that loads of people take, and win, constructive dismissal cases every single year and often get payouts worth many more times what their salary was? Its extremely easy to see in a tribunal setting where managers have all of a sudden started picking on an employee and questioning everything they do. It might seem like you can get away with it in a work setting but a court setting is very different.

devnull

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Wow, there are some real old school, as in dinosaur levels of management going on here. You do know that "managed out" and "PIP" are effectively bullying an employee out of their job?

There is nothing wrong with a PIP, many companies have them, almost all the multi-nationals and there is nothing to stop them being implemented and no law against them, sometimes they are genuinely used to help the person improve and put adequate supports in place, even if they do have other uses.

At the end of the day you can look at things as black and white which I agree is how they should be or you can look at the real world as it happens in reality, HR can be a ruthless world, it's not all smiles and butterflies and rainbows like it is on the first day when the HR person welcomes you to a company.

And that loads of people take, and win, constructive dismissal cases every single year and often get payouts worth many more times what their salary was? Its extremely easy to see in a tribunal setting where managers have all of a sudden started picking on an employee and questioning everything they do. It might seem like you can get away with it in a work setting but a court setting is very different.

Employers can and they do get away with it, I can tell you that because I have seen both employees be on the end of it and employers carry it out successfully as well and if it does hit a hitch along the way and the HR Department does make an error then the company are normally much more open to a settlement where they will offer an employee money for not suing them and providing them a good reference and most employees tend to take that up from my experience.

HR Departments are not stupid or anything like it, those who are managing out know exactly how to do it and leave the appropriate paper trails behind in order to protect themselves. Normally managing someone out is a joint effort between a manager and a HR person or even a HR Team and there are many things that they can do together to negate any employees gripes or to ensure the employee does not use the grievance system to their advantage.

What HR departments hate though is someone trying to refer something to the Workplace Relations Committee or get a neutral mediator involved and many disciplinary policies will also restrict witnesses or companions in Disciplinary meetings to fellow employees, full of the knowledge that a lot of colleagues won't come forward through fear of reprisals. However asking an employer for a mediator because of your concerns of getting a fair hearing in writing and the employer turning it down can be useful later on for the employee.

It is impossible for one person to manage out someone without any support from someone else, because it will almost always fall down in court because it can be argued like you say, but if it involves multiple people, ideally at least three with one of whom has no history at all with the employee, it becomes much easier because they can all work on it together. I know that's dirty and it's not nice but it's the way things work, because there have to be some boxes ticked and steps followed so it looks like it's not just a boss that one day decided he wanted an employee gone.

It is absolutely possible for someone to manage someone out as long as they keep their cool, play the long game and stick to the rules and the laws and the lane and their own disciplinary policy and work together as a team to achieve that outcome. There are very many tactics that can be used to achieve this and are used often, the employee may well know exactly what these tactics are but in a lot of cases will not be able to prove them and you have to remember when you claim constructive dismissal the burden is on you to prove it was unfair, not on the other side to prove they were justified.

The biggest reason that employers end themselves up in court for constructive dismissal cases is mostly because of the fact they were in such a rush to try and get rid of that pesky employee that annoyed them, that they either forgot the principles or natural justice or they simply started skipping or ignoring parts of their own disciplinary policy or grievance policy in order to try and chase someone out of the business as soon as possible. You would not believe how common this is, over 75% of the disciplinary appeals I saw in the past were about technicalities and the slightest breach of process normally results in an automatic win for the employee.

screamer

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Wow, there are some real old school, as in dinosaur levels of management going on here. You do know that "managed out" and "PIP" are effectively bullying an employee out of their job? And that loads of people take, and win, constructive dismissal cases every single year and often get payouts worth many more times what their salary was? Its extremely easy to see in a tribunal setting where managers have all of a sudden started picking on an employee and questioning everything they do. It might seem like you can get away with it in a work setting but a court setting is very different.

Rubbish and more rubbish. Managing someone out and PIPs are the only avenues available to employers to get rid of employees who are not cutting the mustard in terms of delivery or attitude and who have passed the magical mark of one year of service. Nothing old school about it I Usually are able to adjust their performance or behaviour sufficiently to not be managed out but if not then fair enough. Workplaces do not and should not carry people.
Done correctly there are no grounds for court action and that's the crux of it. Done correctly but hey if people all did things correctly there'd be no need for pips.

devnull

screamer wrote: »

Rubbish and more rubbish. Managing someone out and PIPs are the only avenues available to employers to get rid of employees who are not cutting the mustard in terms of delivery or attitude and who have passed the magical mark of one year of service. Nothing old school about it I Usually are able to adjust their performance or behaviour sufficiently to not be managed out but if not then fair enough. Workplaces do not and should not carry people.

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you say, there are multiple reasons that people are managed out, it's not always about behavior or performance even though those two are by far the most common that would happen in most companies.

When senior managers come on sometimes they want to bring their own people in or create their own team or have a "new broom" and sometimes to do that that need to manage a few people out to free up budget to hire new ones as well as managers just wanting rid of people for personal reasons (rare and harder to achieve but happens)

Bandana boy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Wow, there are some real old school, as in dinosaur levels of management going on here. You do know that "managed out" and "PIP" are effectively bullying an employee out of their job? And that loads of people take, and win, constructive dismissal cases every single year and often get payouts worth many more times what their salary was? Its extremely easy to see in a tribunal setting where managers have all of a sudden started picking on an employee and questioning everything they do. It might seem like you can get away with it in a work setting but a court setting is very different.

For a start pay out on constructive dismissal taps out at max of 2 years wages , your comment of many times more than their salary was worth , shows you have very little knowledge on the subject.
You can also only get loss of earnings so you would have to be out of work for those two years.

PIP is not bullying and for the "many many" you mention I counter with Many Many many more do not go to court and many of those that do lose.

In a former job with a large Blue Chip There was ~5% of staff on PIPS every year.For the 5 years I was there they never lost a single action taken against them , and this was not because of deals done on the steps.
They were a tough but fair process that it was difficult but possible to pass.
They are also a lot of work for the Manager and HR rep and it is not implementing a PIP as outlined in the company process that causes most losses when a case is brought not even remotely because of using a PIP.

The reality is the PIP was designed to show that a fair chance was given to the employee before dismissal and they are the most effective tool a company has for protecting from law suits.
The courts who often cannot gauge what construed as fair performance in different industries that they have no experience in , look only to whether a fair and documented process was carried out to rule in these cases.

devnull

Bandana boy wrote: »

They were a tough but fair process that it was difficult but possible to pass.

They are also a lot of work for the Manager and HR rep and it is not implementing a PIP as outlined in the company process that causes most losses when a case is brought not even remotely because of using a PIP.

The reality is the PIP was designed to show that a fair chance was given to the employee before dismissal and they are the most effective tool a company has for protecting from law suits.

Agreed - however they still can be abused so it's wrong to say that all PIPs are fair, in my experience I have seen maybe 25 but I've seen 2-3 in my time that I was not comfortable at all with which were unfair on the employee.

Most commonly this happens when some kind of discretion or vagueness is used in the metrics for which someone is judged on or the PIP success criteria is not clear or is being assessed by someone who cannot be impartial.

Gerry T

If your working at a slow pace and being argumentative it really doesn't help a small company. They could pay you off or do a pip, but another option they have if they wanted you out is to re-organise the company with different titles and roles. Have the current staff apply and hey presto your in a junior programmers role on half the salary but prob doing the grunt of the work you were doing. You may decide to leave and that costs then nothing. Plus your references are gone.
I would suggest you either develop your role in the company with a honest frank conversation or you leave, it's best for your own health.

St1mpMeister

Wow this thread has grown since I planted the seed.. impressive

Anyway cheers for clearing up what "redundancy" is, I assumed that whenever you get let go for non-disciplinary reasons you receive a severance package of some sort. My only experience of being let go was that I received a redundancy package, but it's entirely possible they were just cutting down the number of staff.

My plan is still to mention that I will be "looking elsewhere" and this can go one of two ways, either I remain in my position and just spend my spare time looking for other work (but at least they don't assign me to any new projects), or they let me go and I go on the dole while looking for other work.

witchgirl26

St1mpMeister wrote: »

My plan is still to mention that I will be "looking elsewhere" and this can go one of two ways, either I remain in my position and just spend my spare time looking for other work (but at least they don't assign me to any new projects), or they let me go and I go on the dole while looking for other work.

There is no guarantee that they won't assign you new projects. If they are paying you, they'll expect the work in return for that. I left my old job last year, handed in a months notice and had 3 new jobs on my desk the next day to get going on before I left. It wasn't like a holiday until I left - I was working right up to my last hour in the job and to be honest I wouldn't expect anything else.

As for letting you go - it's not that straightforward. Firing someone takes time as otherwise there is potential for a wrongful dimissal case in this country. Other countries, yep they can have you out the door, but here takes a bit of time. I wouldn't be banking on this.

I don't understand the need to mention it to them at all though. I didn't like my old job very much for a few reasons. I didn't say a word until I handed in my notice as nothing they said or did was going to change my mind about leaving. I would have only mentioned looking elsewhere to them if I was expecting them to counter-offer.

devnull

St1mpMeister wrote: »

Anyway cheers for clearing up what "redundancy" is, I assumed that whenever you get let go for non-disciplinary reasons you receive a severance package of some sort. My only experience of being let go was that I received a redundancy package, but it's entirely possible they were just cutting down the number of staff.

You will only be offered a severance package if they are not able to manage you out in other, more cost effective ways to the company. Paying someone to leave is nowhere near the top of the steps someone takes when they want to move someone on.

My plan is still to mention that I will be "looking elsewhere" and this can go one of two ways, either I remain in my position and just spend my spare time looking for other work (but at least they don't assign me to any new projects), or they let me go and I go on the dole while looking for other work.

By doing so you substantially weaken your negotiating position when it comes to any possible package, but at the end of the day it's your call, but I'm just speaking from experience as someone who has dealt with these things, in these situations key to getting a good deal is holding firm and being strong and not giving any indication you want out.

If you give HR an indication you want out, they will almost certainly offer you worse terms, if they make any offer at all, because if they think someone wants to leave enough they're more likely to succeed in managing you out or if they make you an offer it will be on lower terms versus someone who holds firm. The people who get the best deals are the ones that the company can see no other way of removing from the business.

By the way, those who take severance agreements, unlike redundancy will be taxed on it and disqualified from claiming Jobseekers Benefit for 9 weeks.

Misguided1

devnull wrote: »

If you give HR an indication you want out, they will almost certainly offer you worse terms, if they make any offer at all, because if they think someone wants to leave enough they're more likely to succeed in managing you out or if they make you an offer it will be on lower terms versus someone who holds firm. The people who get the best deals are the ones that the company can see no other way of removing from the business.

By the way, those who take severance agreements, unlike redundancy will be taxed on it and disqualified from claiming Jobseekers Benefit for 9 weeks.

This is not entirely correct. OP isn't being offered any terms to leave. OP wants to resign and misunderstood that there might be a package for doing so. There isn't. Either stay and do the job until you find a new more interesting job or resign. Either way there is no entitlement to a payment.

Also not correct to state that "those who take severance agreements...will be taxed on it". There are up to 3 (that I know of) different potential treatments of ex-gratia payments. In redundancy payments - the statutory piece is tax free, and the ex-gratia element (if there is one) may have one of 3 tax exemptions applied depending on individual circumstances but the remainder is fully taxable.

dbagman

St1mpMeister wrote:

Anyway I might mention the possibility of leaving to them, and see what they say. No harm in it since I'll be leaving anyway!

Why are they going to pay you off to go when they know you're not happy?? Esp if you tell them you're thinking of leaving. You leave and it won't cost them a thing. Why would they decide to pay you off on top of it? Throwing money away.

devnull

Misguided1 wrote: »

This is not entirely correct. OP isn't being offered any terms to leave. OP wants to resign and misunderstood that there might be a package for doing so. There isn't. Either stay and do the job until you find a new more interesting job or resign. Either way there is no entitlement to a payment.

Indeed - at the moment there is no offer on the table, I was just illustrating how things work and what things that play into a decision of whether to offer things like compromise and settlement agreements if such an offer is placed on the table or discussed.

From my reading the OP is not close to a point where the company will offer that, since it is normally only offered if HR want to manage someone out of the business and they were unable to do so by other means so they resorted to an agreement for the employee to leave the business.

There is no indication at least for me here that any 'managing out' is happening based on what I have read and I would agree that the posters only way out are to resign or stay, I was just speaking more generally.

Also not correct to state that "those who take severance agreements...will be taxed on it". There are up to 3 (that I know of) different potential treatments of ex-gratia payments. In redundancy payments - the statutory piece is tax free, and the ex-gratia element (if there is one) may have one of 3 tax exemptions applied depending on individual circumstances but the remainder is fully taxable.

Voluntary Severance is not the same as Voluntary redundancy, they are two totally different things and the amount of misconception about this in the wider public and among employees is very high, they are not interchangeable.

Voluntary Redundancy is when a company may for example announce that they need to make a certain number of redundancies in the department and try to seek volunteers for those redundancies, if not enough people come forward then they will normally resort to laying additional people off with compulsory redundancies.

Voluntary severance is where the person is being asked to go or leaving by choice but it is mutually agreed and the position will still exist and they are offered a package to leave in return for certain conditions being adhered to, this is very common as a conclusion to a process of managing people out who stands their ground and will not resign and cannot be removed under the disciplinary policy.

Misguided1

devnull wrote: »

Voluntary Severance is not the same as Voluntary redundancy, they are two totally different things and the amount of misconception about this in the wider public and among employees is very high, they are not interchangeable.

Voluntary Redundancy is when a company may for example announce that they need to make a certain number of redundancies in the department and try to seek volunteers for those redundancies, if not enough people come forward then they will normally resort to laying additional people off with compulsory redundancies.

Voluntary severance is where the person is being asked to go or leaving by choice but it is mutually agreed and the position will still exist and they are offered a package to leave in return for certain conditions being adhered to, this is very common as a conclusion to a process of managing people out who stands their ground and will not resign and cannot be removed under the disciplinary policy.

Correct on all counts. The tax treatment is what I referring to, sorry if I wasn't clear. The difference in tax treatment in your two examples above is that the statutory redundancy would not apply to the voluntary severance scenario.