Getting rid of staff.

It easier than the alternatives. It's the only legal route. Anything else could end up at an ET and that's a damned sight more complicated.

Unless that is, this isn't a redundancy situation in which case that could end up in an ET.

How does this work with only three employees?

Not if they've been employed longer than a year (on the contract adjusted leaving date)

tim

These are people who told another employee that the cannot have any holiday this year.!!!

With imagination.

That was the bit I was looking for

The business was bought last year. The old owner in their "leaving" letter to employees described it as a TUPE transfer. However the new owner has not agreed with anything else that they said in their letter so...

This Friday is the last payday before the new owners have been in for a year....

That was the bit I was looking for

The business was bought last year. The old owner in their "leaving" letter to employees described it as a TUPE transfer. However the new owner has not agreed with anything else that they said in their letter so...

This Friday is the last payday before the new owners have been in for a year....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether it is a TUPE transfer is a matter of fact and not something that the new owner has to agree to.

The employees will have been transferred over with their previous service intact wrt employment rights and redundancy payments.

In the current market, an employer is not going to get away with "sacking" someone unchallenged. As it is very unlikely that the sacked person will walk into a new job he will have to sign on. When asking why he is out of work the first thing that the benefit people will do if they see a suspect sacking is insist that the ex-employee challenge the reason for the sacking to the full extent of the law.

tim

Knowing what the employer is like I suspect it will end up at tribunal, and beyond if there is one. Is that an expensive process? How long could it take to force them to hand over the money (payment in lieu etc)?

You go to an EAT (Employment Appeal Tribunal) and then, I think, into the normal Appeal, Hol and EU courts

Staying inside the ET process isn't (relatively), going outside it is.

There are stories that a sizable percentage are never paid. I don't know the details

tim

I can't work out whether you are a disinterested bystander; I certainly hope you are not supporting the employers.

That's tough. It probably won't "suit" the employees to be thrown out of a job either.

I think you'll find that could be construed as "constructive dismissal".

Usually the Staff Handbook forms part of the Contract of Employment. The Employer cannot change it "at whim".

If they do, I hope the employees take their cases as far as possible. And if you *are* advising the employers, I hope you have the courage to advise them that not only are they acting illegally, but also immorally.

Trying to predict what an employer might do. So the employee can be ready.

From the letter of contract: "The basic terms and conditions of your employment are as set out in this Contract of Employment (the "Contract"), your offer letter, the Employers Handbook (the Handbook ) and the Employers policies, procedures and rules as may be introduced and/or amended from time to time. Together these documents incorporate the written particulars of employment and are required to be given to you by statute. "

This gives the impression that the handbook can just be updated. Obviously it is updated by changes in legislation ie rules on holiday (in theory anyway!) However other sections - such as payment of overtime were changed on day 1 of the takeover (and the book updated to match 6 months later)

From the above you might guess that the employee might be quite happy to go. BUT NOT WITHOUT 7 weeks pay in lieu of notice and a similar sum of redundancy pay!

SHould these two payments be made at the time of leaving or at the end of the unworked notice period?

I realise the answer to that should be given during "the consultancy period" - but I do not think that in this case the lack of consultation means there wont be a bombshell

Realistically there isn't much that can be done if the employer makes you wait. By the time that the issue gets to court the late payment should have been made.

The more critical issue is when the qualifying period for an ET starts (and ends) should the payment not be made at all.

tim

Well he seems to have made his decision.

He can't afford to pay redundancy so seems to have gone for the war of attrition ie:

He can't afford a few thousand pounds!

He might find that having to pay a few days sick pay might make this a bad move :-)

tim

Not this month! Don't sound too good.

Doesn't he get SSP refunded by the government? Anyway he wouldn't have to pay the first couple of days so he would be quids in.

The benefit of this is that the employee should be able to get a shorter notice period when they find something else. (Hopefully they can find something before the receivers are called in)

Most people have contracts that pay full pay when sick

He's probably better off if he waits. The crown will pay his (minimum) redundancy if the employer can't.

tim

I am ghaving this issue as well and wondered if i could find any advice

url: