I’ve just heard someone in the office has had their request for taking the last week of their redundancy as holiday. Is this not illegal?

Had a look on the web but nothing popped up. any employment solicitors out there or those in the know?

Ta muchly.

Why would it be? If the person is happy with the deal what’s the problem?

Pretty sure they would have to be paid for the holiday accrued anyway.

Am I being dim or is there a word missing in the OP?

“Refused”?
“Granted”?

Bit harsh isn’t it?

No reason I can think not to allow it

To allow time for a handover?

If they have holiday available they can ask, but it can be refused just as yours can. It would need to be paid if not taken tho.

To allow time for a handover?

If the role is being made redundant, then there shouldn’t really be a handover!

Although when does that ever happen these days….

Shouldn’t be a handover if there is they are open to problems as the role should be redundant

If they are downsizing surely there will be some kind of handover.

Shouldn’t be a handover if there is they are open to problems as the role should be redundant

Over simplification.

It would be perfectly reasonable (and legal) to make (for example) redundant 1 of 3 positions doing the same role in an organisation and ask the one whose role is being made redundant to hand over their caseload to the people remaining employed in the two remaining positions.

If its the same role why would you need to handover? As the other people should already know what to do…

If its the same role why would you need to handover? As the other people should already know what to do…

Yes if your job is as simple as to stamp out the same toilet seat as the 2 other guys. But a lot of roles are more complicated, even similar roles would have things like contacts, specific client details, transfer of and tutoring in back history documents. But consolidation can be between 2 different roles if the company cannot support 2, so like losing your receptionist can require other staff to learn how a phone works without constantly losing the caller, how to file so you can actually find things again etc.

how to file so you can actually find things again etc.

that last sentence made me think of this sketch…

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYxmPHLU9oA[/video]

Sorry don’t understand the op.

Could you repeat the question?

Yes if your job is as simple as to stamp out the same toilet seat as the 2 other guys. But a lot of roles are more complicated, even similar roles would have things like contacts, specific client details, transfer of and tutoring in back history documents. But consolidation can be between 2 different roles if the company cannot support 2, so like losing your receptionist can require other staff to learn how a phone works without constantly losing the caller, how to file so you can actually find things again etc.

If you needed to hand all that over it doesn’t sound like the role was redundant.

I understand what a hand over is, I’m just pointing out that if a role has been made redundant then you shouldn’t need to hand over tasks. As a new role will be needed with new responsibilities and processes. Otherwise you haven’t made the role redundant and you are firing/dismissing them which is different and has other criteria to meet and doesn’t cost the tax payer any money.

Wrong. A role as it currently exists can be redundant but the responsibilities within that role can be allocated to different roles that don’t currently own them – basically a restructure or reorganisation (typically with reduction in headcount). That’s perfectly acceptable for redundancy and isn’t firing/dismissing.

As such, a handover may well be necessary to people who may not have been doing some of the tasks before.

And even if it’s the 1 of 3 scenario, then handover can be perfectly legitimate if each of the three have their own projects/customers/whatever that aren’t shared between the 3 even if they’re doing fundamentally the same role.

I understand what a hand over is, I’m just pointing out that if a role has been made redundant then you shouldn’t need to hand over tasks. As a new role will be needed with new responsibilities and processes. Otherwise you haven’t made the role redundant so can’t make people redundant and you are firing/dismissing them which is different and has other criteria to meet.

thats a good point, i was unsure so did a google and came up with this as a first hit from citizens advice…

Sometimes, a reorganisation of the workplace or introduction of new technology mean that the tasks you would normally do are given to other people. If this means that the job you were doing no longer exists, your employer can make you redundant.

So the role might not be redundant, but you still can be 🙁

I’ve just heard someone in the office has had their request for taking the last week of their redundancy as holiday. Is this not illegal?

If it is then call the Police.

STATO – wrong. The role IS redundant but the tasks within that role may still be needed and reallocated to others. That’s pretty normal for companies needing to reduce overheads (ie people, unfortunately) because they’re not performing.

I’ve been through a lot of redundancies ( at least 8 or 9, I lose count ) over the past 10 years in a few companies (from multinationals to startups) including one that concluded 2 weeks ago and 500 people were let go, and once people have been notified that they are in a pool I have never seen or experienced any hand-overs, other than by colleagues who are doing someone a favor. Current place, once the pools were selected some people stayed at home and just checked email and came in for the final letter and that was it; code wasn’t even checked in and desks were left as if they had just gone on holiday.

This is as per Legal and HR advice by people who are paid decent six figure salaries. While you *could* do a handover I don’t think there is much they can do if you say ‘no’, as they can’t exactly sack you mid process can they.

A question for the people saying you have to, are you in Legal or HR or just a minion like the rest of us?

On the other hand, while not quite as many as you (5 or 6 I reckon), I’ve seen some sort of handover in all of them except in the US where people are pretty much gone the day they’re told.

The issue of being forced to do a handover is interesting. I guess in theory you could argue that they’re not doing their job but I doubt it’d be followed up. IME people haven’t been bitter enough to not do a handover but I’m sure that’s not the case everywhere. Agreements between the company and the employees representatives (union or company council type group) have typically been how handovers have been agreed in return for reasonably positive redundancy payouts or terms.

Just a minion FWIW but I’ve been on both side of redundancy – doing it and being made redundant.

rich – It is reasonable (and legal) to expect you to work your notice period after being notified of your redundancy. Many firms don’t as it would be counterproductive to have you around. It would be therefore reasonable to expect you to hand over your work to a colleague within your notice period. If you refused your employer would be within their rights to not pay you for the notice period (obvious would still have to pay you your redundancy entitlement) and it is often written into enhanced redundancy terms.

Just because you have not seen it happen does not mean it can/does not happen.

I mostly work for US firms, so the layoffs are pretty brutal when they come, they typically go as follows:

1. Meeting room booked for one to ones.
2. Met by HR, to process paperwork.
3. Security escort you to desk.
4. Security escort you to the door.

Been a while since I’ve worked somewhere where you look for block meeting room bookings by HR to spot when the axe is due to fall.

In the UK if you are being made redundant its entirely upto you if you want to do a handover or go ride your bike / enjoy the sun. As long as you don’t commit gross misconduct you should be OK.

I think the argument is: If your role is redundant, but the work isn’t that’s fine, but you can’t be expected to train someone in a new role based around yours, just with a new title.

If you refused your employer would be within their rights to not pay you for the notice period (obvious would still have to pay you your redundancy entitlement).

Just because you have not seen it happen does not mean it can/does not happen
They would be in breech of contract at this point, so I don’t think this is the case. So I would expect your employer to weigh up the cost of a lawyer, employment tribunal and bad publicly Vs 1->3 months pay (depending on industry). I doubt very many could be arsed with the hassle

While you *could* do a handover I don’t think there is much they can do if you say ‘no’, as they can’t exactly sack you mid process can they.

Quite probably yes they could sack you

A question for the people saying you have to, are you in Legal or HR or just a minion like the rest of us?

I think if i were being refused holiday during notice out of spite (i.e. no REAL handover required), then it might be different to actually requiring a handover.

Quite probably yes they could sack you

Check with HR and Legal, I think you will find they can’t. As otherwise an employer could save a bucket load of cash as they wouldn’t have to pay any redundancy which would be a major saving as its not cheap to make people redundant.

They would be in breech of contract at this point, so I don’t think this is the case.

Actually the employee is in breach of contract at this point for refusing a reasonable request. But you are right, I can’t see many employers bothering with the hassle. You just wouldn’t hold out for more than the most glib of references.

As otherwise an employer could save a bucket load of cash as they wouldn’t have to pay any redundancy.

Not sure how you work that one out. Most folk act reasonably on notification of redundancy when given a reasonable request so would be a non issue.

Actually the employee is in breach of contract at this point for refusing a reasonable request. But you are right, I can’t see many employers bothering with the hassle. You just wouldn’t hold out for more than the most glib of references.

You can’t get a bad reference and most large companies now do little more than confirm you worked for them between x and y date. Ma and Pa companies may be different but this is definitely the case for the big players.

Companies can refuse however, but I doubt most HR department do much more than send back the standard form with the dates now.

Not sure how you work that one out. Most folk act reasonably on notification of redundancy when given a reasonable request so would be a non issue.

Most folk in my experience become very focused on getting a new job, if they like their colleagues they may help them out. However that’s secondary to paying the mortgage.

That’s my personal experience from seeing > 1000 people laid over in the last 8 years. I’ve been laid off twice in that period, once as I put my hand up after getting bored of the sack the bottom 5% game every year and once as the company was taken over and I was hired back as a contractor within 48 hours.

Both times I actually got made redundant I did not do a handover as my role was redundant and the work was transfered to someone else (and then back to me in one case).

Its been a rough decade in the UK hi-tech industry…

You are right that most reference are now the minimum. Interesting that employers are not actually legally required to do even that – if they were very mean they could just shove the request in the bin.

The bad reference thing is another urban myth – A reference must be ‘fair and accurate’. An ex employee can claim damages if they can prove a reference was unrepresentative or inaccurate but if an employer has evidence (and is ballsy enough!) they could state the employee was dismissed for gross misconduct for theft or failed to carry out reasonable requests from their line manager. I can’t find the case now but there was a firm recently that was successfully sued by another firm for providing a reference that glossed over the fact that the person was dismissed for gross misconduct.

You are right that most reference are now the minimum. Interesting that employers are not actually legally required to do even that – if they were very mean they could could just shove the request in the bin.

The bad reference thing is another urban myth – A reference must be ‘fair and accurate’. An ex employee can claim damages if they prove a reference was unrepresentative or inaccurate but if an employer has evidence (and is balls enough!) they could state the employee was dismissed for gross misconduct for theft or failed to carry out reasonable requests from their line manager.

I take it you don’t know many HR people 🙂 All the ones I know are trying to keep their heads above water, so the thought of actually making more work for themselves by providing a bad reference and the necessary paper trail to back it up is never going to happen. Much easier to send the standard template, even if it takes 3 to 4 weeks to process the request.

Small companies may be different but once you get above a few hundred employees its just not practical to hold grudges or do anything beyond the minimum with this stuff.

I take it you don’t know many HR people

Well I’m married to a HR business partner (what a stupid job title!) in a large multi national if that counts 😀

They normally CBA with holding grudges with the grommets but believe me there is some pretty bitchy play with the more senior roles (from both sides). Her role is mainly to reign in the company directors and stop them spending too much time in court!

Small talk over the cereal in the morning is riveting!

Could be worse my other half is a Professional negligence litigator … essentially she gets paid to argue, unlike most of us on here who do it for free.

Surely if holiday is refused, the personal turmoil of being made redundant could result in you seeing your GP and getting signed off for stress….

The non-cooperation thing for handovers – if the employee refuses a reasonable instruction they can be fired, and I’ve seen it happen. I’m confused that people think they wouldn’t – as someone said, they (the employer) would potentially save a significant amount of money if the employee has long service.

In reality, there’s not much incentive for the outgoing employee not to play ball. Apart from risking their settlement, what’s going to look better on their reference: “redundant” or “dismissed for gross misconduct?”

There’s also the impact on managing other staff who aren’t being made redundant – in fact there’s a risk of an ET claim if a precedent is set: e.g. the company lets the person who’s going to be made redundant refuse to do any work, then if I refuse to do any work they either have to be consistent (and let me get away with it) or explain to a tribunal why different staff have been treated differently. If the soon-to-be-redundant employee is a white bloke and the remaining employee is a black, pregnant, old, transsexual lesbian then the employer could be on a sticky wicket.

On the OP, as someone said there seems to be a word missing so I’m not sure what the question is meant to be, but people can and do take accrued leave during notice periods (redundancy or otherwise) and / or get paid out additionally for leave not taken when they depart. Technically, most employers these days want to avoid risk and in the case where someone hasn’t used their leave they extend the notional employment period to account for it e.g. my last day is Tuesday but I’ve got three days leave I’ve not taken: I still leave work on Tuesday but I get paid till Friday which becomes the date my employment officially ends (I’m “on leave” from Wednesday to Friday).

The above can create slight issues where someone has a new job to go to – e.g. if my new job in the above scenario was meant to start on Wednesday, my old employer could be arsey about that if they really wanted to.

And, yes, of course there can and will be handovers – that someone’s role is no longer required does not necessitate that all of their tasks are no longer needing doing, or that anyone else would know how to do them.

Apart from which, redundancy doesn’t necessarily mean that the role doesn’t exist in substantially the same form somewhere else – I got made redundant a few years ago but my job still existed. The choice I had was relocation to the other end of the country, or redundancy. I chose the latter. Reasonably enough, my employer expected me to hand over to the new person who was taking the role on.

The non-cooperation thing for handovers – if the employee refuses a reasonable instruction they can be fired, and I’ve seen it happen.

I’m amazed that happened as I’ve never heard or seen anyone fired once they are in the redundancy process and the consultations are in progress.

That would take either some serious balls by HR and Legal or a boss prepared to take the risk and put his or her job on the line for making the company look bad, destroy morale and tie people up in employment tribunals.

I’m amazed that happened as I’ve never heard or seen anyone fired once they are in the redundancy process and the consultations are in progress.

If you think of redundancy from the companies perspective it’s often a pretty horrible thing – you are often watching years of skills and experience walking out of the door. If you are downsizing and some of the tasks previously done by the role still need to be done you could be in proper bother if they don’t know what they are doing when the incumbent goes. If you let one balshy git stick 2 fingers up and get away with it how are you going to stop that becoming a flood of balshy gits? Sometimes the ballsy move to make an example might be the only one that ensures the companies survival.

I’m amazed that happened as I’ve never heard or seen anyone fired once they are in the redundancy process and the consultations are in progress.
That would take either some serious balls by HR and Legal or a boss prepared to take the risk and put his or her job on the line for making the company look bad, destroy morale and tie people up in employment tribunals.

Not ballsy at all as it was a very, very simple case that wouldn’t have troubled a tribunal for long (if they’d deigned to hear it, which is unlikely):

Manager instructed member of staff to do something (something reasonable, fell within the terms of their contract, job description etc. etc.). Employee refused. Manager did all the right things by way of going strictly by company procedure, disciplinary policy etc. Once that was done, and documented, the member of staff was dismissed.

That someone is in the midst of a redundancy, or potential redundancy situation doesn’t undermine all the usual employment stuff. No more risk of an ET than any other dismissal.

Fair enough, as I’ve said previously I’ve seen over a thousand people laid off over the last 8 years in multiple firms and I’ve even seen people not hand back phones or laptops and not one has been sacked mid-process.