Cheated out of redunancy

The thing is, they didn't even offer it, they offered employees to apply for it. I wouldn't feel hard done by if i applied for something and didn't get it and the next week someone else in different circumstances applied and got it.
 
the_r_sole said:
you are not and never have been eligible to receive the redundancy package
Click to expand...

He was eligible the first time it was offered, he was the only person singled out to be declined (and they lied about the reason for declining), then as soon as he resigned due to not being given it they offered it again to more people including him (and then told him he was now ineligible).

He has every right to be annoyed and would not be the first person in this position to seek to be compensated via a tribunal. Hence why myself and others have told him to speak to CAB/ACAS for advice on how to proceed.
 
ubersonic said:
I wouldn't, not hiring somebody because they got screwed over by a former employer seems a bit daft.
Click to expand...

The OP seems more like a guy on his last day of work trying to take everything that isn't bolted down rather than a guy who has been screwed.

He wasn't offered anything he wasn't given. His decisions on his professional life are independent of the countries decision to offer redundancy to his co-workers after his resignation.

The offer to apply for VR is common practice and avoids many complications for an employer. An employer cannot offer VR to everyone and risk being short handed when they all accept. Employers are well within their right to assess who is applicable for VR AFTER the employee shows interest as long as it is made clear it as an application for VR and not VR being offered, as assessing the whole company can be time consuming, costly and unproductive if only a handful wish to leave.
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
There's no way the timing is coincidence. If it were a group of people caught foul by this they would have a defense but as they are discriminating against a single employee it's a different matter.
Click to expand...

eh?

how on earth are they discriminating against him - they'll likely have others who were turned down too... tis standard for not everyone to be accepted for voluntary redundancy for very obvious reasons - why does his choice to hand his notice in and move to a new job = discrimination? You really seem to misunderstand the situation.

No the business isn't going to pay out a few hundred thousand making others redundant just to wind up the OP.
 
dowie said:
eh?

how on earth are they discriminating against him - they'll likely have others who were turned down too... tis standard for not everyone to be accepted for voluntary redundancy for very obvious reasons - why does his choice to hand his notice in and move to a new job = discrimination? You really seem to misunderstand the situation.

No the business isn't going to pay out a few hundred thousand making others redundant just to wind up the OP.
Click to expand...

^

It is pretty simple really.
 
ubersonic said:
Well that's pretty obvious, everyone but him who applied for voluntary redundancy got it, they said nobody else could do his job. Then when he handed his notice in they had somebody else do his job and offered out more redundancies.

Pretty clear cut lol.
Click to expand...

are you sure you're not making things up again - he's not stated that absolutely everyone except for him got redundant... and even if they had it isn't 'discrimination' to want to keep someone in a particular role. Keeping someone is a clear indication that their role isn't redundant - the OP might be slightly confused on this one as it is the role not the individual that is made redundant. Since he has handed in his notice they still need someone in that role which again illustrates that the role was a necessary one they didn't want to remove.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
how on earth are they discriminating against him -
Click to expand...

ubersonic said:
he was the only person singled out to be declined (and they lied about the reason for declining)
Click to expand...



dowie said:
they'll likely have others who were turned down too...
Click to expand...

ubersonic said:
he was the only person singled out to be declined (and they lied about the reason for declining)
Click to expand...



dowie said:
No the business isn't going to pay out a few hundred thousand making others redundant just to wind up the OP.
Click to expand...

That would be silly, however them should have to pay the 15k they cheated him out of.
 
ubersonic said:
He was eligible the first time it was offered, he was the only person singled out to be declined (and they lied about the reason for declining), then as soon as he resigned due to not being given it they offered it again to more people including him (and then told him he was now ineligible).

He has every right to be annoyed and would not be the first person in this position to seek to be compensated via a tribunal. Hence why myself and others have told him to speak to CAB/ACAS for advice on how to proceed.
Click to expand...

I can apply for anything I like doesn't mean I would definitely get it - redundancy packages are very dependent on who takes up the offer and the precise circumstances involved.

How did they lie about the reasons? by saying there wasn't someone to take over that position? Surely after the op hands his notice in they have to react to that?!

It doesn't matter who else was offered the packages, if there was somone else working their notice, after resigning for their postion that has been retrospectively awarded a redundancy package, then I would agree the op should be annoyed - but not getting a pay off after handing your notice in?! Cannot see a single circumstance where a redundancy package would be paid to someone that has already resigned from their position prior - surely you can't be eligible for redundancy when you have resigned from the position? Will the op go back and pursue the employer if the person taking over their position is offered redundancy in a couple of years time?!
The timing is unfortunate - but the fact is, op has resigned from the position and working notice period, this is not the same as being an employee on a full time contract
 
dowie said:
are you sure you're not making things up again -
Click to expand...

No, partially because I haven't made anything up to begin with nevermind "again" lol.



dowie said:
he's not stated that absolutely everyone except for him got redundant...
Click to expand...

anything I don't mind said:
everyone got redundancy but myself who asked for it. I am not aware of anyone else who was turned down.
Click to expand...



dowie said:
and even if they had it isn't 'discrimination' to want to keep someone
Click to expand...

It is when you lie about reasons to keep them so yo can avoid paying them redundancy. His role was redundant and they said they couldn't just give his duties to somebody else, yet they did just that when he resigned lol.
 
Your argument hinges on whether he was discriminated against.

Doesn't matter if he was the only one or not. He applied for VR and his application was denied for a reason only known to the company. The reason probably is because they required him to stay in his job. If they had dismissed him after, then he could have a case but the OP resigned and they were forced to replace him.

What action taken by the company specifically is unlawful?
 
anything I don't mind said:
I don't think I am entitled to it, I just think it was unfair that i didn't get it. Yes life is unfair. I just wanted to see if anyone knew if there was anything i could do after the fact in getting that back. But listening to replies i don't think i have a chance because it was a voluntary redundancy and they had the final say, so legally they had no requirement to pay me even though they paid out to everyone else.
Click to expand...

You need to remember one thing - the fact they needed to replace you when you handed in your notice means they require someone to do that role. It is a person's role that gets made redundant, your role clearly hasn't been made redundant. Since they need someone in that role then they could easily have turned you down the second time.
 
Davey_Pitch said:
They didn't cheat him out of anything. He applied for redundancy. He was turned down. He later resigned. End of story.
Click to expand...

This, it's pretty simple.

Volountary redundancy gets handed out at least once a year in the place I work, but not everyone who applies for it will get it. That's just how it works.
If you then resign before the next round of VRs come in then that's your issue and the employer owes you nothing surely.
 
Crpwned said:
This, it's pretty simple.

Volountary redundancy gets handed out at least once a year in the place I work, but not everyone who applies for it will get it. That's just how it works.
If you then resign before the next round of VRs come in then that's your issue and the employer owes you nothing surely.
Click to expand...

Wow, what industry are you in?

If my company did that i would be fearing for my job or their margins xD
 
ubersonic said:
No, partially because I haven't made anything up to begin with nevermind "again" lol.
Click to expand...

you have, the OP had to correct you even:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28650804&postcount=36

you then made a flawed analogy:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28650906&postcount=42

It is when you lie about reasons to keep them so yo can avoid paying them redundancy. His role was redundant and they said they couldn't just give his duties to somebody else, yet they did just that when he resigned lol.
Click to expand...

his role has never been redundant, that is the point - the fact they had to bring someone in to replace him after resigning when others are being made redundant and therefore not replaced only strengthens the argument that his role isn't redundant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom