Tenure when being made redundant

Engine No.9

Hi. My company is in a consultation period at the moment and we are seriously staring down the barrel of the redundancy gun. Our reps (non-union) have been meeting with the company to discuss the terms of any possible redundancies and they are saying that all staff will receive 4 weeks salary per year of service, irrespective of whether they have the minimum 2 years service or not, so those below the threshold will be receiving an ad-hoc payment in line with their time in service.

The reps have been querying this, saying that those who have tenure are being discriminated against as they are receiving the same package as those who have no tenure. When enquiring about the statutory portion of the redundancy, the company says we need to get that out of our heads and that they are not paying the statutory portion which is why they say that they are painting everyone with the same brush.

My question is this, if the company is insisting that they are not paying the statutory portion, are we able to claim it from the state or how do wengo about getting this resolved?

colm_c

pajopearl wrote: »

Hi. My company is in a consultation period at the moment and we are seriously staring down the barrel of the redundancy gun. Our reps (non-union) have been meeting with the company to discuss the terms of any possible redundancies and they are saying that all staff will receive 4 weeks salary per year of service, irrespective of whether they have the minimum 2 years service or not, so those below the threshold will be receiving an ad-hoc payment in line with their time in service.

The reps have been querying this, saying that those who have tenure are being discriminated against as they are receiving the same package as those who have no tenure. When enquiring about the statutory portion of the redundancy, the company says we need to get that out of our heads and that they are not paying the statutory portion which is why they say that they are painting everyone with the same brush.

My question is this, if the company is insisting that they are not paying the statutory portion, are we able to claim it from the state or how do wengo about getting this resolved?

Having been through this, statutory is 2 weeks for every year with a cap of 600 per week.

So your employer is actually being quite good, 4 weeks with no cap.

As for people with and without tenure, I don't see why people with tenure would want people without it to get less. Seems mean and petty.

It's a crap experience to go through for anyone involved.

Engine No.9

colm_c wrote: »

Having been through this, statutory is 2 weeks for every year with a cap of 600 per week.

So your employer is actually being quite good, 4 weeks with no cap.

As for people with and without tenure, I don't see why people with tenure would want people without it to get less. Seems mean and petty.

It's a crap experience to go through for anyone involved.

Oh, just to be clear, I’m not saying I want them to get less, they’re good people and I love that they’re getting something out of it. What I’m saying is... statutory is compulsory, meaning it has to be paid, but the company is insisting they will not pay this portion, so I’m just enquiring as to how I get this mandatory payment!? Hypothetically, of course, as we’re still in consultation.

testicles

This post has been deleted.

Engine No.9

testicles wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I get what you're saying, but the company is saying they are paying 4 weeks across the board and that they are not paying statutory. But statutory has to be paid in all cases, no!?

Also, there's a question as to whether the redundancy will include shift allowance and BIK, but this is the minimum standard for redundancies, right!?

colm_c

pajopearl wrote: »

I get what you're saying, but the company is saying they are paying 4 weeks across the board and that they are not paying statutory. But statutory has to be paid in all cases, no!?

Also, there's a question as to whether the redundancy will include shift allowance and BIK, but this is the minimum standard for redundancies, right!?

The way it works is that the company must pay at least statutory, in your case they are paying more.

If the company cannot pay statutory (ie there is no money left), then the government pay you instead.

The company are under no obligation to pay any more than the minimum statutory, so anything above it is great especially in the case where it's company closing/liquidating.

So in terms of bik or allowances that would be at the discretion of the company, but unlikely imo.

My view is, don't drag this out or what will happen is that there will be no money left in the company and you will only get statutory, and may not end up getting paid for your last month.

Lantus

As per previous posts sounds like the wording is throwing you.

What industry is the company in?

Sometimes asking to go first can be better as you are lined up for other jobs first. depends if entire company will close or this is just a restructure.

OMM 0000

Let me give you an analogy.

You go to a restaurant with your partner, and order a dessert to share.

Out of the kindness of their heart, the restaurant decides to give you and your partner two desserts, the second one being free.

You and your partner kick up a fuss because you're only supposed to get one dessert.

3DataModem

pajopearl wrote: »

Oh, just to be clear, I’m not saying I want them to get less, they’re good people and I love that they’re getting something out of it. What I’m saying is... statutory is compulsory, meaning it has to be paid, but the company is insisting they will not pay this portion, so I’m just enquiring as to how I get this mandatory payment!? Hypothetically, of course, as we’re still in consultation.

Statutory is a MINIMUM not a guaranteed separate payment. If they pay you more than the minimum then they have met statutory obligations.

silent_spark

Reiterating what has already been said: you ARE getting your statutory minimum, plus some. Your employer is also being really decent by offering a payment to employees under the two year threshold. The money your colleagues receive doesn’t devalue what you are being offered.

Misguided1

Lets simplify this.

Your employer is paying you 2 weeks statutory (minus the cap of 600) plus 2 weeks.

Four weeks in total. I don't see the problem.

knipex

pajopearl wrote: »

I get what you're saying, but the company is saying they are paying 4 weeks across the board and that they are not paying statutory. But statutory has to be paid in all cases, no!?

Also, there's a question as to whether the redundancy will include shift allowance and BIK, but this is the minimum standard for redundancies, right!?

You "reps" are probably asking for statutory added on top of the 4 weeks.

Some of the old school multinationals used to negotiate redundancy as x weeks plus statutory ie. x weeks plus 2.

In effect the reps are asking for 6 weeks for those over 2 years service and 4 weeks for those with less.

Company are saying.. get stuffed..

Engine No.9

knipex wrote: »

You "reps" are probably asking for statutory added on top of the 4 weeks.

Some of the old school multinationals used to negotiate redundancy as x weeks plus statutory ie. x weeks plus 2.

In effect the reps are asking for 6 weeks for those over 2 years service and 4 weeks for those with less.

Company are saying.. get stuffed..

Nail and head.

knipex

pajopearl wrote: »

Nail and head.

Lets try this another way.

When you get paid redundancy by the company there isn't a way to get the extra to the compulsory and not compulsory/

You either get compulsory or more than compulsory. In your case of 4 weeks (with no apparent cap) you are getting more than statutory and have no further entitlement.

Your reps may be saying they are looking for statutory on top but that just a phrase.. its not actually statutory, they are looking of an additional 2 weeks for those with more than 2 years service.

As for discrimination.

You are all getting exactly the same.. 4 weeks per week service. What you (or rather your reps) are asking for is discrimination as it take 1 group as being worth more than another.

To be honest I am surprised you described the company as non unionised as your descriptions and arguments remind me very much of the old style manufacturing unions..

jimmycrackcorm

pajopearl wrote:

I get what you're saying, but the company is saying they are paying 4 weeks across the board and that they are not paying statutory. But statutory has to be paid in all cases, no!?

As long as your redundancy concerts the minimum requirements, the statutory portion is legally converted. I.e. you can't get paid 4 weeks agreed redundancy and argue that you didn't get the statutory redundancy

pajopearl wrote:

Also, there's a question as to whether the redundancy will include shift allowance and BIK, but this is the minimum standard for redundancies, right!?

There would be a valid argument that the statutory minimum should cover what two weeks average pay would be inclusive of allowances. However four weeks would be in excess of the required amount in that event, so basically anything extra is a plus and the company could calculate it on the base pay. You can quibble over that but it's above what the company is legally obliged to provide.

seamus

The reps need to stop being greedy. If you've been there ten years you're going to get the bulk of a year's salary, a lot of which will be tax free. A guy who's been there a year will get a month's salary.

Asking for statutory on top because of "tenure" is greediness, and if they push it, it'll only end up biting them. The company can tell them to go jump and pay everyone statutory and nothing else.