|
||||||
|
||||||
ADVICE
Guest comment: the legal approach to redundancy2 April 2008COMMENTSNo employer likes to find out that you have taken legal action in your past and you will find yourself in the unenviable position of never getting beyond 2nd interview stage anywhere. Read all comments »Think you might be made redundant? Now's the time to start saving those emails, says employment lawyer Elaine Aarons. Everyone in the City knows that economic woes lead to redundancies and the banking sector is being particularly hard hit in the current downturn.The latest figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research suggest that up to 10,000 jobs could be lost in the City this year alone. But in every round of redundancies, a significant percentage of employees are reluctant to just sign on the dotted line and accept their redundancy offer, especially if they feel their dismissal is unfair or unjustified.
First steps
If you are concerned about redundancy, the best precautionary measure you can take is to make careful notes of all conversations with your employer. It goes without saying that you should save all relevant e-mails or letters too. Amassing evidence is crucial.
This advice particularly applies to high achievers. Counter-intuitively, we are currently seeing some banks making their high fliers redundant. Speculation is that this way clients can be shared out amongst fewer players, thereby increasing profitability.
The first formal sign that you may be facing redundancy will be receiving an ‘at risk’ letter from your employer. Redundancy is not supposed to be a definite outcome on receiving such a letter, but it usually is.
In such correspondence, the employer typically explains that they are looking to deploy the ‘at risk’ employee to another department. As many banks have moved towards headcount freezes in the last few weeks, redeployment is not likely.
During and after a dismissal
Employers seem to be adhering more rigidly to proper dismissal procedures now, compared to during the last recession in the 1990s. It will thus be harder to bring a claim based on a procedural mistake, as fewer mistakes are being made.
However, this is not to say that unfair dismissals do not occur – employees are often made redundant in unfair or unjustified circumstances, even if the dismissal procedures are followed.
If you feel that you have been made redundant unfairly, you should ask to see the redundancy criteria that have been applied, and how individuals were selected for redundancy. Other than the counter-intuitive example of high fliers being made redundant cited above, we are seeing evidence of pregnant employees, or those returning from parental or sick leave, being made redundant. If you are made redundant in such circumstances, you may well have a claim for discrimination as well as unfair dismissal. Unfair dismissal claims are capped (currently at £63k). Discrimination claims, which are uncapped, can therefore be more valuable.
Making a claim If you do feel that you have been unfairly made redundant, you should look into obtaining legal advice. It is likely that your claim will be settled by your employer, particularly if they are facing other similar claims. A good lawyer will be able to maximise the settlement you receive.
A word of warning though: steel yourself for a fight before making any claim. Whilst it is unlikely that your claim will go to a full employment tribunal, you are likely to have to go through either an appeal or grievance procedure, which is never pleasant. Allegations of underperformance are standard fare in the current climate and you will feel on the defensive when you want to be on the attack. You should be absolutely certain of your motives and objectives before seeking a legal solution, but there is no doubt that those who are tenacious do best.
Elaine Aarons is a partner in the employment team at international law firm Withers LLP. She specialises in acting for senior executives.
COMMENTSAnon, Investment Banking / M & A, Wed 02 Apr 08Agreed. Steel yourself for the internal grievance procedure. It is worth the fight if you have a good claim! Add your comment »Jane, Wed 02 Apr 08A futher cautionary word to those considering taking their employers to tribunal: even if you are aware of documentary evidence of unfair selection procedures (such as a 'redundancy hitlist' produced before your appraisals were undertaken, when your appraisals have been cited as the reason for your selection) the bank will move heaven and earth not to disclose the document, even with properly executed Subject Access Requests under the Data Protection Act 1998. They'll say 'the document has not been found' which is, of course, not at all the same thing as 'the document does not and did not exist'. Even appealing to the Information Commissioner will not help (they're swamped with similar claims). It's an uphill battle to obtain the truth from an employer hell-bent on concealing it. You have been warned... Add your comment »Undisclosed, Wed 02 Apr 08A startling thing about the internal grievance procedure is how little an employer has to prove to make a case for your dismissal. But when it comes to challenging the decision, you have to provide very strong evidence to make the grievance panel take you seriously. Once a bank has decided to get rid of you they will make a lot of personal and professional allegations against you with little or no evidence to back it up. So use the grievance procedure to stand up for yourself and point out how weak their evidence is. It is a very empowering experience and does make the bank more keen to be seen to follow fair procedure Add your comment »Anonymous, Wed 02 Apr 08If you have to raise a grievance against a bank, be prepared to fight alone. None of your colleagues will support you and will probably give evidence against you to try to undermine your credibility. Don't take it personally when you read their statements, even if you know the comments are false. A bank will have great power to influence witnesses in the internal grievance procedure, but if a case does go to the Employment Tribunal witnesses get nervous and feel more uncomfortable about lying under oath. The legal process is not easy, but does recognise there is an inequality in bargaining power and a high degree of bias in the grievance outcome decisions Add your comment »Been there!, Wed 02 Apr 08Don't be scared to shop around for a solicitor. Quite often regional lawyers will only cost £80 vs £250 for city lawyers. But when it comes to negotiating with the bank, a City firm will have far more experience and be able to secure you a better deal. Solicitors generally work on an hourly rate, no win/no fee (where they take about 30% of your settlement) or fixed fee (where you pay a fixed sum and they will only invest a certain number of hours on your case). You only get what you pay for. Given the size of the potential settlement, it may be wise to spend a little more. Always check if you have legal insurance, which could save you a packet if the bank decides to put up a lengthy fight. It is quite normal for banks to settle on the court steps, hoping you would have run out of money by then or lost your nerve! Add your comment »Anon, Wed 02 Apr 08If your redundancy is potentially related to your health, be very careful about talking to the company's occupational health department. They have a strong relationship with the bank and may well try to undermine your case. Make detailed notes even at meetings with the company health advisors and always seek independent medical advice (on a regular basis if you have a condition impacting your work) Add your comment »Anon, Wed 02 Apr 08HR know employees are quite emotionally vulnerable when their employment is threatened. HR often plays on this by implying that you will be treated better by the company if you go quietly. Bank's don't like grievances and will put a lot of psychological pressure on you not to submit a grievance, knowing that if you don't submit a grievance in time it will be very difficult for you to pursue a legal claim against them. Be careful to make notes of all your "confidential discussions" with HR, often they are not very confidential and are fed back to your manager/other parties the grievance will impact. HR will often deny they details of their discussions with you because it shows they were notified of certain breaches of duty of care to you, so keep your notes and don't rely on anyone to back you up! The old expression "you have no friends in banking" is very true in this type of situation! Add your comment »Anonymous, Investment Banking / M & A, Wed 02 Apr 08US banks are used to a litigatious environment, so are likely to be more careful to formally follow the appropriate dismissal/redundancy procedure, even if their substantive reasons were not lawful. European banks tend to be more relaxed about the legalities, but that doesn't mean they are easy targets. They often assume European employees don't want to go to court either, so will not actually go through with the threat of litigation. You may find yourself in for a big fight to make them realise you mean business! Add your comment »new york law related ?, Thu 03 Apr 08any comments about new york law related claim ? Add your comment »John Saunders, Derivatives, Thu 03 Apr 08Be very careful about suing your employer. If you are looking to retire, then fine but if you are mid-career, then no amount of redundancy payment will make up for what will turn out to be a scuppered career. In other words, no employer likes to find out that you have taken legal action in your past and you will find yourself in the unenviable position of never getting beyond 2nd interview stage anywhere. Add your comment » |
||||||
| ||||||


