Redundancy

[Grays_1890]

Question for any HR bods

My mate was on 6 months probation and went over it without a review by about two months, due covid he was made redundant but they used the non extension of probation as terms of termination.

does this means he will be fudged for the tax free final salary?

 

[P.D.]

If he's not being made redundant which technically it sounds like he isn't then no he wouldn't be but even if he was then if you haven't been emplyed somewhere for 2 years then you aren't eligible for statutory redundancy payments. I don't know the law but if they haven't done a review for 2 months after the deadline then he may have a case to say it is or some argument to come to an agreement as they weren't fulfilling their duties.

 

[Grays_1890]

If he's not being made redundant which technically it sounds like he isn't then no he wouldn't be but even if he was then if you haven't been emplyed somewhere for 2 years then you aren't eligible for statutory redundancy payments. I don't know the law but if they haven't done a review for 2 months after the deadline then he may have a case to say it is or some argument to come to an agreement as they weren't fulfilling their duties.

I thought regardless your final salary was at least tax free no?

 

[Glenda's Legs]

I thought regardless your final salary was at least tax free no?

Up to £30k in redundancy payments are tax free, but your actual wage/salary payment for time worked or for payment in lieu of notice ("Pilon") is taxable.

 

[Grays_1890]

Up to £30k in redundancy payments are tax free, but your actual wage/salary payment for time worked or for payment in lieu of notice ("Pilon") is taxable.

Ahhh I get ya, nice one

 

[Aldo]

Yes it’s only the redundancy element that is tax free, and if under 2 years service there won’t be any of that (statutory).
Salary will be taxable.

 

[Thebarbarian]

Little bit of advice, tell him to keep a very close eye on the employer. If he hears/finds they have employed someone at a later date into the same role he was in he can then argue the non-extension was incorrect and it was in actual fact a redundancy. If that is the case then they must pay him all redundancy entitlements and possibly others or offer him his job back.

I've seen it happen and the Regulators don't like to see employers abuse their position in regards to employee rights so they will almost certainly find a way to pay him to not rock the boat, or offer him a job.

 

[Aldo]

Little bit of advice, tell him to keep a very close eye on the employer. If he hears/finds they have employed someone at a later date into the same role he was in he can then argue the non-extension was incorrect and it was in actual fact a redundancy. If that is the case then they must pay him all redundancy entitlements and possibly others or offer him his job back.

I've seen it happen and the Regulators don't like to see employers abuse their position in regards to employee rights so they will almost certainly find a way to pay him to not rock the boat, or offer him a job.

In a redundancy situation, it is the role that is made redundant, not the person.
So, if he discovers that someone else has directly replaced him in his old role, then that would suggest he had not been made redundant, but been fired / not had his contract extended.
If a company wants to get rid of someone but don’t want the hassle of the process, they could make the role redundant then tweak the JD of the role for the next guy to avoid such later accusations.