# redundancy and alternatives



## wavejumper (14 Apr 2004)

my current employer has announced that my department is going to be outsourced abroad and we're therefore all toast...they are arranging with HR to find us suitable positions within the company based on our skills...i haven't been to one of these meetings yet but it seems that they make it very clear that if you do not wish to apply to the jobs on offer then you automatically forfeit any right to a redundancy payment...so lets say someone is doing sales, they offer him customer service, he/she either takes it or forget redundancy payment

While not totally unfair I wonderif its legal?...I'm in the IT sector, so no unions to speak of.


----------



## <A HREF=http://pub145.ezboard.com/baskaboutmoney.s (14 Apr 2004)

You should check with the DETE employment rights/redundancy section for information about your statutory entitlements. Non statutory redundancy entitlements are a contractual matter and/or a matter for negotiation. 

www.entemp.ie


----------



## wavejumper (14 Apr 2004)

*...*

thanks for the links...i might add that we were all given 6 weeks so its all fairly kosher as far as terms...I can't figure from these docs wether forcing people to take any other vacancy or forfeit statutory redundancy is legal or correct...afterall the manager of the deparmtent you end up haviong to apply to will know you're not up for it and just turn you down...and then what? surely, you're still entitled to redundancy then, are you not?


----------



## Puffy (14 Apr 2004)

Have just been through a similiar situation myself, basically if you apply for and are offered a position in the company on the same pay and you do not accept it then you forfeit redundancy....

However, if you do not apply for any of the available positions then you are not in that situation and are entitled to redundancy as normal.


----------



## MAC (14 Apr 2004)

*I don't think so......*

Wavejumper,

Your question "if you do not wish to apply to the jobs on offer then you automatically forfeit any right to a redundancy payment" - this is definitely not the case.

Some employers might like to think it is, and it may help to reduce a claim in the EAT but if your terms and conditions are being changed without your explicit agreement then this is illegal.

Hope it works out
MAC


----------



## wavejumper (14 Apr 2004)

*.,.*

thanks puffy...would you happen to know what happens if the position they offer involves a lower salary, but you only find out after you applied for it, and then you turn it down?


----------



## <A HREF=http://pub145.ezboard.com/baskaboutmoney.s (14 Apr 2004)

*Re: .,.*

Contacting the DETE for information about your statutory rights in this situation might be a more expedient way to progress.


----------



## MAC (14 Apr 2004)

*"offered a lower salary"*

This would be deemed to be unacceptable and they would have to offer a package otherwise it's off to the EAT and .... winner alright!

MAC


----------



## wavejumper (15 Apr 2004)

*...*

0: thanks I'll certinly do that.

Mac: afte the meeting it transpires that until my final day in this position, HR will assist in placing me in another position...they however stressed that if it gets to the last day and I still have not found anything, should they find "any" vacancy they deem suitable and I refuse to apply for it in that case I would forfeit my redundancy...I'll call DETE and double check on this as it sounds horses*it...

also last night, despite not having called a recruitment agency in 2 years I found a message on my mobile from an external recruitment agency asking me if I was looking for work...coincidence, or maybe kind HR decided to break a couple of data privacy laws and pass my details outside...I'll look into that too...


----------



## MAC (15 Apr 2004)

*Something smells rotten alright*

Wavejumper,

"should they find "any" vacancy they deem suitable and I refuse to apply for it in that case I would forfeit my redundancy" - I wouldn't mind fighting this one at the EAT, they are way off the mark here. Can I ask is this a big organisation, if so presumably they would have taken legal advice. I would say they are bluffing big time! What kind of package is being offered ie. 5 WPY?

"I found a message on my mobile from an external recruitment agency asking me if I was looking for work" - I would ask the agency exactly where they got your mobile number from - this does sounds very sinister.

Sometimes it pays to be paranoid!

MAC


----------



## Puffy (15 Apr 2004)

As far as I know they are likely to offer you the position at the same salary, if the salary is lower than your present salary then this is a fair reason for turning down the offered position.... Or you can push for the salary to be increased

Have a look at this link [broken link removed]


----------



## wavejumper (15 Apr 2004)

*MAC*

called both DETI and the Dataprotection agency:

DETI: if they offer me a position that is suitable to my skills and current salary and I refuse it I might have a hard time to claim redundancy but it really depends on what is being offered.  Otherwise I can stand my ground as they say I've got every right to refuse any other position that does not suit my skills or that involves a substantial drop of income...

FYI, yea the company is a major IT outfit, they are probably offering only statury package, they are not being open about what the package will be, they are just stressing that they will consider it only as a last option...all my department is non-irish so i get the feeling HR is playing on the naivety of some of us...some of us.
Its all really a big cost cutting excercise, the new location costs a tenth of Dublin and they are pressurising everyone to get another job here or possibly outside so they don't have to pay us redundancy...nevermind these companies got so many tax cuts in the last ten years. and now off the cheaper shores...what a deal.


As far as the agency call, it turns out I had sent them my details a year ago, or so they say...i'll let that one pass.


----------



## <A HREF=http://pub145.ezboard.com/baskaboutmoney.s (15 Apr 2004)

*Re: MAC*



> they are probably offering only statury package



They certainly cannot abrogate your right to statutory redundancy, whatever about non-statutory redundancy, by putting terms & conditions on your qualification for same. In the case where a company can't/won't pay statutory redundancy or other outstanding entitlements (pay in lieu of notice or holidays etc.) then the employee may be able to claim the outstanding amounts from the DETE's Redundancy or Insolvency Payments Sections:

www.entemp.ie/erir/red2.htm


----------



## wavejumper (15 Apr 2004)

*puffy*

thanks for the link...the employer gets a 60% rebate on the lump sum paid to the employee...does that mean the employer gets back 60 per cent of the redundancy money paid to the employee?  from who?  the government?  that can't be right.


----------



## <A HREF=http://pub145.ezboard.com/baskaboutmoney.s (15 Apr 2004)

*Re: puffy*

As far as I know that's correct - the employer can claim a rebate of 60% of statutory redundancy paid. However that's arguably neither here nor there in this situation or to employees in general who usually just want to ensure that they get their statutory (or non statutory) entitlements.

www.entemp.ie/erir/red2-gp.htm


----------



## wavejumper (15 Apr 2004)

*thanks*

thanks to all for the answers, I have a better picture now.


----------



## MAC (15 Apr 2004)

*Wavejumper...*

"the company is a major IT outfit, " - same goes for me, hope it's not the same one 

"they are probably offering only statury package, " - that would be EXTREMELY unusual, the par for the course is 5-6 weeks per year. They don't like bad publicity, IDA grant issues etc. Could they prove inability to pay more that the stat. in the EAT - I doubt it.

An important point is that the 60% that they get back from the redundancy fund is only 60% of the stat amount - if your are below 41 years of age that is minimal (used to be a half a weeks pay per year, not sure about now). So if they paid 5 WPY then they would get no rebate on the additional 4.5WPY.

In any event it sounds like they are bluffing big time, but I hope it works out for you.

MAC


----------



## ajapale (16 Apr 2004)

*Re: Wavejumper...*



> if your are below 41 years of age



I think this restriction has been dropped in recent legislation. It was found to be "aegist" by the EU.

*Section 10 of the Redundancy Payments Act 2003 (Commencement) Order 2003 * provides for a new enhanced entitlement of two weeks statutory redundancy payment for every year of service, regardless of age, rather than the present half week between 16 and 41 and one week over 41. The present bonus week and employer 60% rebate will continue. 




> *Calculation of Lump Sum.*
> Twoweeks pay for each year of employment continuous and reckonable between the ages of 16 and 66 years
> in addition, a bonus week. When the total number of days is ascertained, any remaining number of days if such a number comes to 182 (26 weeks) or more, is regarded as an extra year.
> Reckonable service is service EXCLUDING ordinary sickleave over and above 26 weeks, occupational injury over and above 52 weeks , maternity leave over 18 weeks and career breaks over 13 weeks in a 52 week period.
> ...



[broken link removed]

Ajapale


----------



## MAC (16 Apr 2004)

*Clarification...*

Thanks Ajapale for the clarification,

I see that the ceiling has been increased to €507 - an improvement but still not great!

So Wavejumper, the statutory entitlement would not be (for say 5 years service) 5 x 2 x 507 (even if you were on 60-70k p.a. so you would be entitled to €5k. I think your emploer would still be able to claim back 60% of that through the redundancy fund so the next cost to them would be 3k.

Most (even half decent IT co.s) would be paying 5 WPY and if you were on say 40k they calculation would be 5 x 5 x 800 (€20k of which they could still claim back the 3k making their net costs 17k). This is a 5 month payback and I find it hard to believe that this would not be seen as cost effective if the pressure was on. My previous points about bad publicity still apply. 

MAC


----------



## <A HREF=http://pub145.ezboard.com/baskaboutmoney.s (16 Apr 2004)

*Re: Clarification...*



> Most (even half decent IT co.s) would be paying 5 WPY



Not in my experience. But maybe small startups are different or don't fit the description above?


----------



## Zed (16 Apr 2004)

*Payment*

Mac

Should calculation not be (5 x 5 x 507)+ 507 = €13,182 ?

Z


----------



## MAC (16 Apr 2004)

*Clarification...*

O, sorry... I was talking about the larger MNCs.

Zed, "Should calculation not be (5 x 5 x 507)+ 507 = €13,182 ?" - normally in a voluntary severance situation the statutory celing does not apply.

MAC


----------



## mary (16 Apr 2004)

*new work permits for exploited immigrants*

Tánaiste promises new work permits for exploited immigrants 

...In a radio interview this morning, Ms Harney said: "If there are people out there who are currently unhappy because the pay and conditions or the terms under which they came are not being fulfilled, if they contact my department we will give them a permit to work elsewhere. 

[broken link removed]


----------



## <A HREF=http://pub145.ezboard.com/baskaboutmoney.s (16 Apr 2004)

*Re: new work permits for exploited immigrants*

Interesting but not sure what it has to do with this discussion to be honest?


----------



## mary (17 Apr 2004)

*new permits for immigrants*

It is no fun being the putt of positive discrimination and being the wrong side of 40.  It is out the door no matter how good you are at your job!


----------



## Marie (17 Apr 2004)

*new permits for immigrants*

Mary - in the context of this thread - outsourcing of IT services - what do you see to be the relevance of permits for immigrants, most of whom will be unskilled, coming from rural or village areas of the Balkans?  Outsourcing is part of the machinery of late capitalism and is associated with stimulation of desire, development of "life-style" as opposed to essential needs, and is destructive - generally - of human relations.  However there is little opposition to these developments - which are based on greed not need - because the bottom line is "someone" benefits from the switch!  I pity the immigrants who before they even reach the shores of Oirland of the Welcomes are being held responsible for decisions of multinationals and global trading strategies


----------



## wavejumper (18 Apr 2004)

*immigrants*

thanks for the numbers and clarifications...i only have 2 years with these guys and i'm on 30k, dunno if i'll bother hanging aroun d for the pennies tbo, it'd be easier to negotiate on better wages with a new employer while i still have a job i think.

Mary, dunno where you're coming from with that remark about mary harney and immigrants, fyi i'm from the eu, i've been here 10 years and certainly didn't come here for the "exciting career prospects" I can guarantee.


----------



## ajapale (18 Apr 2004)

*i only have 2 years with these guys*



> i only have 2 years with these guys



It may not be relevant in your case but I think once you go over the the 2 years your rights to any *pension contribution refunds* disappear.

Ajapale


----------



## MAC (19 Apr 2004)

*Pension rights*

Ajapale,

"I think once you go over the the 2 years your rights to any pension contribution refunds disappear." - not necessarily. In my org. that's not the case.

MAC


----------



## wavejumper (20 Apr 2004)

*what if*

in the case I get offered a new postion within the same company and this position is different from the one i used to hold and the salary associated to this new position is lower than my current one are there any implications...can i insists to maintain at least my current salary or ask for some sort of lump sum?


----------



## MAC (20 Apr 2004)

*Current Salary?*

a) "can i insists to maintain at least my current salary" - Yes

b) "or ask for some sort of lump sum? " - do NOT ask this question........ this will be a natrual progression if they get the answer to a) wrong. You should not instigate the discussion on a lump sum. 

MAC
Let's know how you get on............


----------



## wavejumper (20 Apr 2004)

*subtly sublty*

aye Mac, thanks.  I have an internal interview for a position which my manager tells me is normally remunerated less that what i currently earn...i certainly am not gonna go there demanding anything but once/if I get the offer from HR I'd like to know how much I can push and what entitlements(if any) are there for yours truly.  thanks for your replies so far.


----------



## MAC (20 Apr 2004)

*The offer....*

Wavejumper,

Best of luck with the interview...... if they offer you the job I suggest that you express shock and horror if teh remuneration is lower than you currently enjoy...... Then you will have to go away and think about it and tell them you hope they will do the same. Then meet up again and ask if they have reconsidered. 

If they are not prepared to moved, tell them you aren't either. Let them instigate any discussion on redundancy - remember to stress that all you want to do is to continue working and have no deterioration in your pay and conditions. This is crucial to the negotiation phase.

All the best
MAC


----------



## wavejumper (20 Apr 2004)

*Mac*

LOL, we're kinda similar    I have good ammunition for the negotiation in that I came back to a previous position with the same company after travelling for a year and later applied internally for the position i currently hold so I'll play the "loyal soldier" card...considering its them trying to kick us out to save dosh I also have a "moral advantage" point...we'll see how tings pan out. cheers.


----------



## MAC (20 Apr 2004)

*It's all a game....*

Remember, it's all a game - nothing personal, just a process that has to be worked through. There WILL be funds allocated / budgeted for, just stayed focused and concentrate on what you want the end result to to. No emotions! If you are is discussions and the usual red herring is thrown in - tell them you need time to think about it.

You might have to break out 3 or 4 times until you get the right result but it's worthwhile.

A horrible thought has just crossed my mind - that maybe you work for me!!!!

MAC


----------



## ajapale (20 Apr 2004)

*Re: It's all a game....*



> Remember, it's all a game - nothing personal, just a process that has to be worked through.



I agree with MAC, essentially it is a *negotiation*. Unfortunately the game is always a bit uneven. These HR types are doing this every day. You, if your lucky, will only go through the process once.

There are some good books on negotiation out there. I reccomend *"Getting to Yes"* is out quite a while but I have found it useful.

ajapale


----------



## wavejumper (20 Apr 2004)

*Sir...*

"A horrible thought has just crossed my mind - that maybe you work for me!!!!"

That would simply be too rich.  Give me the secret AAM handshake at the interview, I'll know its you...

Ajapale, thank for the tip.  To be honest had enough coming and going in this company to know HR pretty well...I'm used to it, I'm just trying to know some of the legalities so I know when there's a bluff to be called or when to eat humble pie.


----------

