Right I will try and make this as brief as possible.
I work for a company who’s really big on being ethical and has principals and values that they say are at the forefront of everything they do.
Well next August I will be made redundant because they are opening a new depot, which suits me fine as the wife wants to re-locate, so I have done my Cat C to help get a job when we move. It will be compulsory redundancy because of the big changes to our T&C’s in the new contract, although they are offering positions should I want to move.
I had my 121 last night with my manager and got my estimated figure for redundancy (I’m due a pay rise next May so it will go up slightly.) In my 121 I was told that as my first 4 years service were between the ages of 18 and 22 I would get 4 years at half a weeks pay and 5 years at 1 weeks pay. My company are then multiplying the 7 weeks pay by 3 , which gives me 21 weeks redundancy (this is the company redundancy package not any special treatment they choose to pay this).
When I started working for this company I was the youngest for there for many years yet got paid the same as everyone else had to do the same work , same targets etc. There was a fellow who started a couple of months later who will be getting 9 weeks multiplied by 3 so 27 weeks for his 9 year service . His redundancy package is worth nearly £3000 more than mine due to his service being 9 years over the age of 22.
What I’m asking is with the ageism laws and the company core values and principals and being very ethical should I question HR as to how it is fair that I am discriminated against because 4 years of my service was under 22? Obviously £3000 would make a massive difference to me and my family and I think I should be entitled to the same as everyone else at the company.
I understand that I am very lucky to be offered such a good package in the first place just don’t like the fact Im treated different to others for doing the same job.
Things can be different I think based on date of joining As this might be contractual but I would say that to tell you you’re getting less because you were under 22 would be age discrimination. Get everything in writing. Check to make sure your colleagues contract is the same so that you are comparing apples with apples so to speak.
At our depot there a two different contracts one is clerical the other is warehouse operative they are exactly the same apart from job role. A person on clerical contract can not be told to do anything other than clerical work. My work mate is on exactly the same contract as me the only reason he is getting more than me is because of the age I was when I started.
Based on this should I give them a ring? I spoke to my union rep he was about as much use as asking my daughters rabbit. Don’t think he wants to rock the boat.
Yes, years of service under the age of 22 are 1/2 week per year, and any years over the age of (IIRC) 41 are paid at the rate of 1.5 weeks per year. No, it’s not fair if you look at it from your point of view, but I suppose it’s based on somebody’s idea of responsibilties increasing as you hit certain milestones, although it might be fairer if it was based on your age at the time of redundancy, rather than over your career.
In reality they can can do this, they have abided by the minimum rules but have been generous enough to multiply your redundancy by 3, they do not have to do this, all in all I think your offer is fair, we would all like more but that’s life my friend, your young age is a factor but don’t get bitter - get better, you are moving hopefully so look forward to the future.
Stay with your current company & get your c+ e passed. You wont find many other driving gobs out there , remember your home every night too and the moneys quite decent. WELL YOU DID ASK
Well, I have spoken to my HR department and they seemed quite understanding of my feelings and how it does seem unfair (shocked to say the least). They have told me that they will look into it and get back to me with there response took a best form of contact and I should hear from them in the next couple of days.
I know that it is in the law that 18-21 year old get 1/2 a week for each years service, however with my company doing an enhanced redundancy policy they are exceeding the government minimum, I will be getting less than someone who has been there the same amount of time purely because of my age so I don’t see how they can use the government statuary redundancy law when the redundancy isn’t based on that anyway.
So I have told them that I feel as if I’m being discriminated against because of my age and I await there response.
Don’t try and go down that alley in court if things went that way, as I think you’d loose as they doing nothing illegal, I see ur point but maybe should be grateful they giving you extra, don’t look gift horse in the mouth and all that.
Cruise Control:
Don’t try and go down that alley in court if things went that way, as I think you’d loose as they doing nothing illegal, I see ur point but maybe should be grateful they giving you extra, don’t look gift horse in the mouth and all that.
To be fair they are not giving me “extra” as you say it’s the company policy to pay it at x3, what I don’t agree with is that I am being treated differently to everyone else at work solely because I was 18 when I started there.
Ageism works both ways, well at least it should.
It would be interesting to know if they have offered the old boys who are over 65 anything because in “law” they are not entitled to anything, whether that is morally or ethically right is down to personal opinion I suppose.
Also I wouldn’t take it to court over it, like I said my company is supposed to trade and work ethically and IMO what they are doing is ethical.
NewLad:
Well, I have spoken to my HR department and they seemed quite understanding of my feelings and how it does seem unfair (shocked to say the least). They have told me that they will look into it and get back to me with there response took a best form of contact and I should hear from them in the next couple of days.
I know that it is in the law that 18-21 year old get 1/2 a week for each years service, however with my company doing an enhanced redundancy policy they are exceeding the government minimum, I will be getting less than someone who has been there the same amount of time purely because of my age so I don’t see how they can use the government statuary redundancy law when the redundancy isn’t based on that anyway.
So I have told them that I feel as if I’m being discriminated against because of my age and I await there response.
You are not being discriminated against though, accept what they offer but whatever you do, do not try to fight them on this, they will have had a legal department look into redundancies beforehand, just be aware they have the law on their side, they may come and offer you a better package but don’t rely on it, just tread carefully.
If you really want more advice try ACAS or the CAB.
NewLad:
Well, I have spoken to my HR department and they seemed quite understanding of my feelings and how it does seem unfair (shocked to say the least). They have told me that they will look into it and get back to me with there response took a best form of contact and I should hear from them in the next couple of days.
I know that it is in the law that 18-21 year old get 1/2 a week for each years service, however with my company doing an enhanced redundancy policy they are exceeding the government minimum, I will be getting less than someone who has been there the same amount of time purely because of my age so I don’t see how they can use the government statuary redundancy law when the redundancy isn’t based on that anyway.
So I have told them that I feel as if I’m being discriminated against because of my age and I await there response.
You are not being discriminated against though, accept what they offer but whatever you do, do not try to fight them on this, they will have had a legal department look into redundancies beforehand, just be aware they have the law on their side, they may come and offer you a better package but don’t rely on it, just tread carefully.
If you really want more advice try ACAS or the CAB.
I see what you are saying and I don’t want to come across as being an knob or a mardy ■■■■■■, I just can’t see any reason other than my age as to why I am getting 3k less than someone who has been there less time than me and we are both under 40.
I’m really not going to kick up a massive stink about it, I just wanted to ask them the ? and see what they had to say about why it is fair.
I do understand, but also you understand that your qualifying age means that you are only entitled to a certain amount between the age of 18 and 22, if the other guy was 23 when he started then that is why he is getting more, he has more qualifying years at the higher rate than you, its not your fault you were younger but neither is that the fault of the company either.
NewLad:
What I’m asking is with the ageism laws and the company core values and principals and being very ethical should I question HR as to how it is fair that I am discriminated against because 4 years of my service was under 22?
Your company is not discriminating against you. HR are applying Statutory Redundancy rates. You can question HR if you want but they are under no obligation to do anything other than the statutory minimum unless otherwise stated in your contract.
THE LAW for redundancy pay states that you are not entitled to the same rate for the years you were aged under 22 or 22 to 41.
Statutory redundancy pay is:
0.5 week’s pay for each full year of service where your age was under 22
1 week’s pay for each full year of service where your age was 22 or above, but under 41
1.5 week’s pay for each full year of service where your age was 41 or above
NewLad:
What I’m asking is with the ageism laws and the company core values and principals and being very ethical should I question HR as to how it is fair that I am discriminated against because 4 years of my service was under 22?
Your company is not discriminating against you. HR are applying Statutory Redundancy rates. You can question HR if you want but they are under no obligation to do anything other than the statutory minimum unless otherwise stated in your contract.
THE LAW for redundancy pay states that you are not entitled to the same rate for the years you were aged under 22 or 22 to 41.
Statutory redundancy pay is:
0.5 week’s pay for each full year of service where your age was under 22
1 week’s pay for each full year of service where your age was 22 or above, but under 41
1.5 week’s pay for each full year of service where your age was 41 or above
My point is my employer is NOT using statutory redundancy to calculate our payments as Im getting 21 weeks pay for 9 years service 4 of which were under the age of 22. My friend has done 9 years service and is getting 27 weeks pay I say again we are NOT getting statutory redundancy. Why should I be treated differently? I was employed with my employer before 2006 when the age discrimination laws came into effect.
Saaamon:
Becareful, they mite sack you next month and you’ll end up with [zb] all.
Once they have given termination in writing via this form of redundancy they can sack him which really that is all they have done is sack him and given him compo … but he is entitled to it (employment tribunral would love that!!) … the company are also to offer you reasonable amounts of time off to attend interviews etc.
If this situation had been brought to your attention when you applied for the position it would not have been a problem, as most people will agree to anything to get a start
