Mate is being told if he starts back with the company who made him redundant within x amount of time,he mentioned 8 weeks then he may have to pay back x amount of his redundancy 
,anyone know the laws on being made redundant and then restarting with the same company,different depot though.ta
The term “redundancy” means that there is no longer a job for him to do. If it transpires that there was, in fact, a suitable job for him to do, he should have been made an offer to relocate to a different depot. If the company weren’t willing to discuss/negotiate this, then I reckon he could sign on at the different depot as a “new starter” and keep every penny.
Then tell the prats in the management system to get their act together!
I found this:
Re-employment after redundancy
The redundancy provisions of the National Employment Standards do not prevent the re-employment of an employee previously made redundant, nor is there a provision disqualifying redundancy pay if the employee is re-employed within a particular period after the original redundancy occurred. An employee re-employed at any future time would not be required to forfeit their redundancy pay.
It is common for an employer to have a company policy that prohibits the re-employment of an employee whose position was made redundant. The existence of such a policy may be a response to existing taxation law. For tax purposes, the redundancy pay must relate to a ‘bona fide’ redundancy. This determines whether the payment receives a concessional taxation rate compared to other eligible termination payments. Any arrangement entered into with the employee prior to termination of an employee’s employment regarding future re-employment would not be considered a ‘bona fide’ redundancy for the purposes of tax law.
So it seems that there is no real LAW about it but a company can make its own rule. Also - if you go back to the same (or similar) work with the same employer the tax free status of redundancy pay would be called into question. I imagine HMRC would pick this up quickly.
Retired Old ■■■■:
The term “redundancy” means that there is no longer a job for him to do. If it transpires that there was, in fact, a suitable job for him to do, he should have been made an offer to relocate to a different depot. If the company weren’t willing to discuss/negotiate this, then I reckon he could sign on at the different depot as a “new starter” and keep every penny.
Then tell the prats in the management system to get their act together!
Thanks,they made the lad redundant ,then rang him to start back at another depot so it did seem unfair to then imply he would have to pay back part of his redundancy,they should of just transferred him over there and then as jobs were avaliable at the time.
Never heard of paying your redundancy back so said I’d ask for him .thanks again
Santa:
I found this:Re-employment after redundancy
The redundancy provisions of the National Employment Standards do not prevent the re-employment of an employee previously made redundant, nor is there a provision disqualifying redundancy pay if the employee is re-employed within a particular period after the original redundancy occurred. An employee re-employed at any future time would not be required to forfeit their redundancy pay.
It is common for an employer to have a company policy that prohibits the re-employment of an employee whose position was made redundant. The existence of such a policy may be a response to existing taxation law. For tax purposes, the redundancy pay must relate to a ‘bona fide’ redundancy. This determines whether the payment receives a concessional taxation rate compared to other eligible termination payments. Any arrangement entered into with the employee prior to termination of an employee’s employment regarding future re-employment would not be considered a ‘bona fide’ redundancy for the purposes of tax law.
So it seems that there is no real LAW about it but a company can make its own rule. Also - if you go back to the same (or similar) work with the same employer the tax free status of redundancy pay would be called into question. I imagine HMRC would pick this up quickly.
He’s going to be doing the same work,chilled,but at Lutterworth not Newark,he’s having to fill in a application form,assesment drive,company induction so I’m led to believe ,which I thought was crazy as he knows chilled off by heart as he’s done the job for years,but maybe there doing it to get round laws on tax etc,opening a can of worms to be honest,think its time he took some proper advice(no offence meant),
Why they just couldn’t of transferred him down there at the time I don’t know,there were loads of jobs going,would of mate it much more straightforward, thanks
In which case, I would suggest he pockets the cash & looks for employment with a competitor!
Take the job at another depot and refuse to repay any redundancy. If they try and enforce a repayment, threaten them with an Employment Tribunal.
You have to wonder at these companies, high flying management culling staff only to have to re-employ weeks later, seen lots of that on the transporters and those lads that went back never repaid a bean of their substantial payouts.
Couldn’t he simply stay on agency till the alloted time period is up then restart.
In the past I’ve had this.
Was made redundant as I didn’t want to accept the new (lower ) salary, (T’s & C’s were modified too)
Turns out no-one wanted it, so all drivers left, bar one.
2 days prior to the actual redundancy date all the drivers had a phone call to say the salary had increased by £3700.
The final salary was paid as though redundancy had gone through (monthly pay deadlines).
Those that chose to return were told to repay the redundancy part by X date.
If you didn’t, wages were withheld as returning to work was conditional on returning the redundancy element of your final wage.
In my case, I handed the cheque in a day late, so wages were withheld, but were rushed through to get me a salary soon after.
Returning afterwards also meant I kept my length of service and increased holiday days.
I’ll say that this is company policy, not law.
It’s all very well having a payoff, but it only works if you have full time employment to go to afterwards.
Otherwise, you’re living on that payout. (Statutory amount, so wouldn’t last long for most people).
I’m still trying to decide whether it’s better to work for a dodgy employer or an ignorant one.