I'm being made redundant, no biggie, I've kind of been expecting it for a while now, so I've already got a few irons in the fire. The problem is my redundancy entitlement.... It's pretty crap. I'm currently in discussions with my employer and trade union about it, and the reaction of my employer is making me wonder if what i'm asking for is unreasonable. So I thought I'd canvas some opinion over what I'm asking and whether you guys think I'm right to keep pressing on about it. I'm well aware of the pitfalls of discussing things like this on an open forum so, the names have been changed to protect the not so innocent....

Okay, now things could get a little complicated so I'm going to draw a little diagram of the company structures before and after. The vertical position in the stack denotes the company hierarchy (ie. C and D are the main parent groups)


I've worked for my employer (A) for nearly seven years now and survived two waves of redundancy and also the transfer of the business. My employer was part of a larger company (B) which itself was part of a large(ish) UK based media and publishing group (C). Now, a couple of years ago (B) was sold off to (D) and my company was retained by the group and placed into another parent company within the group (E). Just prior to this, everybody except myself and another colleague were made redundant and the two of us moved into the new parent company and assured that nothing was going to change. We'd still be paying into the group pension, we'd still be entitled to the same private healthcare scheme etc.

All employees made redundant up to this point had been offered the same terms, which were actually quite favourable, these were the same terms offered to people in the parent company (both B and C) since the late 70's, and when it (B) was sold, one of the stipulations placed on the sale was that any future redundancies in B would follow the same rules as before, despite them quite a bit better than the buyer (D) would've normally offered to its staff in its other businesses.

I had, up until this point, assumed the group would've ensured the same for me and my colleague, after all, we're still ultimately part of the same group (C). So when I was told that we would actually get a much less favourable deal (the deal our new parent company offers to all its employees apparently) I was understandably miffed.

My question is: Is it right for me to try and push for the same terms my ex-colleagues got, and people in B still get from their new employer (D)? I'm not talking about legal entitlements here, I'm looking for an opinion on a moral standpoint. Is what I'm asking for wrong?

Now, the group publicly prides itself on being honourable, trustworthy and fair. In fact, its publications frequently point out the wrongdoings of other businesses and gives off the impression of being a bit self-righteous. Does this sound like the actions of an honourable and fair employer?

Now I'm sure many UK members can hazard a guess at who my employer might be, and I'd appreciate, for the sake of keeping this out of google, to keep it to themselves, or send me a pm to confirm if they really want to know.

What do you guys think? Am I being greedy and unreasonable, or do I have a point? My friends and family agree with me, but of course they're my friends and family. I'd appreciate the opinions of people with a little more detachment from the immediate situation.

I would agree with you, you just want the same deal as your ex co-workers, which sounds logical. On the other hand, new bosses (companies) make for new deals. But in your case, it's not even an entirely different and new company that took over so I believe it should be possible for them to give you the same deal. (also depending a bit on how long ago it was of course - situations change over time and as we all know by now, times are tough)

Thanks for your reply.

I should probably point out that company C 'still' adheres to the more favorable terms. It appears that E is the only company in the group that has these terms.

I don't think it's wrong to push for what is best for you. Your employer is going to do what is best for them. Are we talking about some kind of severance package? What recourse is there if they don't give you what you want? This doesn't sound like they are required by law to give you the better deal.

Did I read it right that company A, no longer exists. Also that you were offered a job at, or lateral transfer to E when A vanished, and there are only two who were allowed to make that jump?

That's a messy circumstance, on one hand, a class of only two, would not likely be a big cost to company E, but E might not want to create a precedent that your other coworkers might then claim.

It's apparent you and your fellow feel yourselves to be members of a special class. The trick will be having some way to show it. Did you retain any benefits or differences in benefits, granted by A, not normally granted to E's other employees?

If your tenure at E has been under the same terms as every one else, it's going to be hard to claim any additional entitlements.

Did you sign a contract with A, and does it still apply? Or did E have you sign new papers?

To answer the moral question, I think you are right to at least pursue the same terms as your previous colleagues were offered. That I think is without question.

It's a different answer all together if you had asked if you are entitled to the same terms from a legal sense. I would suspect the waters would be very muddy indeed! I think you need to decide if you want to put yourself through what could be a lengthy and possibly disappointing series of events, or do you just put it all behind you and move onto better things?

Me personally, I'd pursue it if my Union thought I had a chance!

Have you thought about offering to buy up all the assets of company A with the package they have offered you as way of meeting in the middle? I think we both know who could ultimately benefit from a deal like that

Cheers

Cris

Matt: Yes, they're not legally obliged to give me any more than they're currently offering, it's more of a moral issue than a legal one.

Glenn: No, A still exists until the end of the month. Although we were made to sign new contracts with the parent company, so it's not a clear-cut legal thing. But the union thinks there's a fair bit of wiggle room in the contracts. There's only two of us in this situation, we are 'unique' within the immediate business (B) and there's unlikely to ever be anyone else like us again. I'm not out to try and negotiate better terms for people who've always worked for company E.

Cris: I've asked about the assets and they didn't give a clear answer. I'm not 100% confident I'd recoup my money. In terms of them meeting me in the middle, they've not even left their side yet, and currently I'm not sure they will.

I think the only option that might yield results is to go the group and appeal to them. It was, after all their decision to retain the business and place it in company E. They negotiated the continuation of the redundancy terms for the people in company B. Why can't they do it for us?

Thanks for your responses everyone, I can sit down and write my appeal letter tonight with a clear conscience.

What you ask for looks morally justified based on things like continuity of employment and the fact that most other employees in this position were granted the original terms. The fact that 'C' still provides these terms strengthens your position even more.

A provided these terms because it was part of B which provided these terms because it was part of C.
The fact that E happened should be irrelevant.

A key thing for me is "the two of us moved into the new parent company and assured that nothing was going to change"

If you were given limited options about signing with E then that contract may be unreasonable.

I personally think you should be *very* assertive about what is owed you - go see an employment solicitor (My wife did and it was immensely useful). I bet the only reason you're getting 'screwed' is because you don't have the weight of numbers that B was able to use in their negotiation with D.

Good luck

It kinda sounds like you should have the same deal as a previous parent under TUPE, but IANAL.

Anything here that's helpful?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/BusinessTransfersandtakeovers/DG_176391