Fire/rehire

[Woody Guthrie]

Stop jumping at shadows guys.
You're spooking the children.

[Only2ofus]

https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-st ... ial-action

[goneaway]

https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-st ... ial-action

After 12 weeks, you can be dismissed if you take industrial action and your employer has tried to settle the dispute. For example, your employer may bring in advisers from Acas to help find a solution.

So that's why Royal Mail want to bring in ACAS. Not to try and resolve the dispute, but to have the excuse for getting rid of staff without having to pay out redundancy. I'm assuming they wouldn't have to pay out redundancy in these circumstances?

[Only2ofus]

Yes. They don’t want to deal with the union and the process is to use a mediator like Acas. Both the union and RM will be well aware of the rules.

[Only2ofus]

Using Acas to resolve the dispute is correct. If the union refuses to then as I understand it RM can legally sack us.

[LaggyBand]

Apparently it was reported in The Times yesterday that Royal Mail are threatening compulsory redundancies.

Compulsory redundancies?! I came to the wrong place before my bedtime

[daveyeff]

Well i hope the rest that didn't accept it do the same as this guy. But whats stopping our bunch of shitbags doing the same as P&O?

115,000 employees with redundancy packages would be quite a lot I imagine. Wouldn’t quite line up with their narrative of poverty either.

Surely it depends on what the "redundancy" packages are. Legally 13 weeks pay for everybody was mentioned at P&O

[Woody Guthrie]

Surely it depends on what the "redundancy" packages are. Legally 13 weeks pay for everybody was mentioned at P&O

Legally it would have to be at least statutory minimum which is 1 week for every year of service up to the age of 40 then 1.5 weeks after that however as we have a contractual agreement that's superior to that it would be for an industrial tribunal to decide what the actual lawful entitlement was.

As I've pointed out loads of times before, I'm sick of this fear mongering comparison with P&O.

Technically the P&O staff were not actually employed in the UK due to the maritime industry's rather shady practices of registering employees abroad and they were looking at 800 employees vs 115, 000 employees.

The actual payout P&O staff received was subject to an NDA so it's likely to be way above what's quoted otherwise nobody would have signed it.

[seesred]

Just be clear that, bring dismissed due to industrial action, fire and re-hire, compulsory redundancy, are all separate issues. They have no connection other than being different means by which an employer can attempt to reduce their long-term labour costs.

[Pidleypoo]

Surely it depends on what the "redundancy" packages are. Legally 13 weeks pay for everybody was mentioned at P&O

Legally it would have to be at least statutory minimum which is 1 week for every year of service up to the age of 40 then 1.5 weeks after that however as we have a contractual agreement that's superior to that it would be for an industrial tribunal to decide what the actual lawful entitlement was.

As I've pointed out loads of times before, I'm sick of this fear mongering comparison with P&O.

Technically the P&O staff were not actually employed in the UK due to the maritime industry's rather shady practices of registering employees abroad and they were looking at 800 employees vs 115, 000 employees.

The actual payout P&O staff received was subject to an NDA so it's likely to be way above what's quoted otherwise nobody would have signed it.

Well said.

I don’t know how many times I’ve had to have this same argument.

It wouldn’t be finically viable for rm to do it.

The other one that gets me is the wanting to get rid of letters to the government.

If they did try that , who keeps the Royal Mail name ? Who keeps what offices and equipment? And what stops a government setting up their own parcel company? All that happens in that scenario is an instant competitor

[Tman]

And what stops a government setting up their own parcel company?

Common sense, probably.
There's no shortage of parcel couriers in the UK, so there's certainly no need for another state-run organisation to run in competition.

Rhetorically speaking, would anyone subject to "fire and rehire" even be eligible for statutory redundancy payments?

Leaving P&O aside, the principle is "sign this new contract or consider yourself as having resigned".

I can't see the financial experts and legal eagles paying out a penny more than they have to, given those terms.

[seesred]

And what stops a government setting up their own parcel company?

Rhetorically speaking, would anyone subject to "fire and rehire" even be eligible for statutory redundancy payments?

Leaving P&O aside, the principle is "sign this new contract or consider yourself as having resigned".

I can't see the financial experts and legal eagles paying out a penny more than they have to, given those terms.

Fire and rehire means that employees who refuse to sign new contracts are effectively making themselves unemployed. The company does not have to pay them any redundancy. As long as the company follows the correct legal procedures, they won't run into the sorts of problems that meant P&O ended up having to pay compensation to their sacked workforce. The company has to be wary of leaving itself open to claims for constructive dismissal.
Compulsory redundancy would usually only be used to make a relatively small number of employees redundant. The company has to legally establish that those jobs no longer exist, and they are not allowed to replace the redundant employees within a specified time period. It has nothing to do with asking employees to sign new contracts.

[Woody Guthrie]

Leaving P&O aside, the principle is "sign this new contract or consider yourself as having resigned".

It's not really the legality of whether redundancy terms are necessary but whether it makes financial sense to offer a leaving package rather than as has been shown in this case having to pay out compensation following an industrial tribunal.

Someone who refused to sign a rehire contract would not have been considered a resignation but a constructive dismissal in the same way that someone refusing to accept an imposed change in terms during employment and then subsequently dismissed would.

[Woody Guthrie]

At the end of the day there isn't much point in worrying about it because there's only two reasons to float the idea.

1. It's false and just a scare tactic and therefore should be ignored.
2. It's genuine and there's absolutely nothing we can do to influence it so would be as well being ignored.

Constantly fretting, obsessing and terrifying the casual observer on these threads is pretty pointless. Lawyers can't even agree on the legalities of fire&rehire so I doubt a bunch of posties can.

[Nickvilla20]

Nice to read some common sense Woody. If they did try a fire and rehire many posties would just leave. I’m under 40 and have close to 20 years and I’m considered young in Royal Mail. They would need to replace a lot of people on delivery and that would cost them a fortune and that’s not including any legal challenges they would face.