A
admiral
Guest
Our employer has acknowledged that they have a cash issue in terms of not being able to meet salaries from December onwards.
The boss has been in touch with social/family affairs dept and says that they (SW) are Ok with a letter to say that we are being temporarily being laid off for a period of up to 3 months and that they (SW) don't require the P45 for sign on purposes.
He says that their (the company) preference is to wait out for those 3 months and, if nothing materially changes, they will *then* issue P45.
A couple of questions.
1. Is postponement of issuing P45s like this an acceptable course of action?
are their pitfalls ?
2. Does a delay of up to 3 months on the issuance of the P45 delay the company obligation to provide statutory redundancy to those employees who qualify for it ?
Is there such a thing as being "temporary laid off "?
Being cynical, it seems to me like being half-pregnant but maybe the concept exists ??
The boss has been in touch with social/family affairs dept and says that they (SW) are Ok with a letter to say that we are being temporarily being laid off for a period of up to 3 months and that they (SW) don't require the P45 for sign on purposes.
He says that their (the company) preference is to wait out for those 3 months and, if nothing materially changes, they will *then* issue P45.
A couple of questions.
1. Is postponement of issuing P45s like this an acceptable course of action?
are their pitfalls ?
2. Does a delay of up to 3 months on the issuance of the P45 delay the company obligation to provide statutory redundancy to those employees who qualify for it ?
Is there such a thing as being "temporary laid off "?
Being cynical, it seems to me like being half-pregnant but maybe the concept exists ??