AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Redundancy (2)

30th May 1975, Page 42
30th May 1975
Page 42
Page 42, 30th May 1975 — Redundancy (2)
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Volunteers still take the money

by Les Oldridge, TEng(CEI), MIMI, AMIRTE WHEN considering redundancy payments made upon dismissal it is important to determine exactly what is meant by the word "dismiss." If an employer closes his business without formally dismissing an employee this does not exclude the employee from obtaining a redundancy payment. If an employer finds he is short of work and asks for volunteers to leave his employment anyone who so volunteers is still entitled to a redundancy payment provided the employer then actually dismisses him.

Where a business changes ownership but the employees continue to work for the new owner on the same terms with no break in employment, then they are not entitled to redundancy pay. The same rule applies if they accept re-engagement on different terms before the termination of their employment with the old employer if the starting date of the new job is not more than four weeks after the old job ends.

An important point of this arrangement to the employee is that company change of ownership does not affect his continuity of employment.

Special provisions

The Act makes provisions for the transfer of an employee from one company to a subsidiary of that company; this is regarded as continuous employment and he is not entitled to a redundancy payment. If an employee becomes redundant in the job for which he was engaged but accepts a written -offer by his employer to do different work on different terms he is not entitled to a redundancy payment. If he refuses the offer of alternative work he is not entitled to a payment if these conditions are satisfied.

(1) The offer was made in writing before the termination of his old job and enough particulars were provided to give him a clear idea of the offer.

(2) The new job was available immediately or not more than four weeks later.

(3) The employment offered was suitable in relation to the employee and lie must have acted unreasonably in refusing the offer.

There is bound to be disagree ment and disputes over what is "suitable.' A ti-tinker driver or one used to Continental haulage may, for instance, consider local work completely unsuitable to his way of life.

The Act provides for disputes to be referred to an industrial tribunal, and in cases where the suitability of alternative employment is under consideration the tribunal will take into account such things as the earnings in the new job compared with the old, whether it is necessary and reasonable to expect the employee to work in a different place, the skills of the man and what has been the accepted practice in the industry.

When a man gets the sack he naturally seeks another job at the first opportunity. But what is his position in regards to redundancy payment if he is successful in obtaining another post and his new boss wants him to start work for him before the notice from his old employer expires?

The Act provides for cases of this kind. If he gives his old boss notice in writing to terminate his contract of employment and his employer does not object to him going, then his entitlement to redundancy pay is not affected, except that the date he actually leaves his old employment is the date of his dismissal, for the purpose of calculating his length of service.

If the employer does object to him leaving before his notice expires he may serve a further notice on him warning him that he, the employer, will contest any liability to pay a redundancy payment. If the employee disregards this warning and still leaves prematurely and the old employer witholds payment, the employee may apply to the industrial tribunal.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus