Severance or Redundancy?

I am very concerned that nobody seems to be acknowledging the different legal statuses between it being called voluntary "severance", as opposed to "redundancy". I am NOT a NAPO member, but in the information from them I have read on line recently, nowhere does the difference between these terms seems to have been mentioned, acknowledged - and indeed still seem to be being used 'interchangeably'. Please someone look at this and research it properly and act accordingly! It could make a big difference to people - especially the over 55s whether they accept voluntary 'severance', or are made voluntarily or even compulsorily 'redundant'.

Accepting 'severance' one is in effect signing away any rights - and are walking away from their job with their blessing. I believe this means you are no longer entitled to claim any state benefits for 6 months (someone more knowledgeable than me might wish to check/confirm that!). Redundancy however leaves you with a totally different status - your employer is putting you out of work.

I phoned Greater Manchester LGPS yesterday, and was told that anyone over the age of 55, who is made "redundant" (ie. NOT who has taken a severance deal!) is entitled to draw their pension, without loss or penalty (in line with what I understand they are 'offering' those who accept the severance). So for starters, if you were made "redundant" by your CRC and are over 55 - you get the pension anyway. Anyone of any age would get a 'statutory redundancy' payout - more the older you are, check the .gov website. And you would (I believe) be entitled to claim state benefits.

Therefore, surely if people do not sign the "severance" deal and the staff are going anyway, the CRCs will have to make people voluntarily or compulsorily "redundant" - which I accept for some (not all) may be less in actual cash. But it does at lease feel the more honest exit in principle.

If no one acquiesced to this "severance" in any of the CRC's I can see that Sodexo (or rather the CRCs Ltd) would then HAVE to go down the "Redundancy" path which would be MUCH more painful, for them. It also makes one wonder if the sudden change from "redundancy" to "severance" wasn't part of a little nod and wink deal with the Government, to reduce the loss of employment statistics (severance wouldn't count - we are all agreeing to it!), and a way of ensuring that 600+ people don't suddenly start claiming JSA etc.

******
Well said. I hope Jim features those comments in a main blog article.

I am only a 'common man' but as I think it through - severance is merely another way of saying accepted an invitation to resign - that is voluntarily surrendering one's employment contract - so for a start I would want the equivalent of whatever I might be entitled to claim as an unemployed person for myself AND my dependent family, for whatever time I am eligible to so claim PLUS as much as necessary to take account of my occupational pension in the long term AND a bit more as compensation for all the inconvenience involved.

******
Thank you and yes, I hope Jim does feature this issue about the differences between "Severance" and "Redundancy" somewhere prominent. I would be interested to see a Union response to the legal difference between "Severance" and "Redundancy" - any takers?

Frankly, I of course feel that the Unions should not be letting the employers 'off the hook' with the original agreed EVR - but that is a different issue - and anyway, once people have signed that "severance" deal they are off the hook with you, anyway - you've just agreed to walk away, with the offer - and are left with no rights at all. You and the CRC totally finished - the line drawn.

I'm concerned that people are going to 'sign their rights away' with this "Severance" offer, without it having been properly explained, or understood from a 'legal status' standpoint.
I feel that people are being hustled into signing this deal - with the very short window to submit 'expressions of interest'. I understand that most decent employers will pay for everyone to take proper legal advice before signing anything along these lines. Is that being offered by the CRCs Ltd, and if not, negotiated by the Unions?

Again I say - I am not in a Union, and am glad I haven't been paying them, as I don't see any of them acting in the sufficiently enquiring way I would expect and want for my dues. Sometimes and for some of us, it may be better to take NO ACTION. They want us gone - then let them make us redundant, and I mean "redundant".

******
Yes - no action - MAYBE right for some BUT only after gaining individualised legal & FINANCIAL advice to protect one's contracted rights and make the best of the situation as far as long term pension rights are concerned - which is likely to be different for different folk for a host of reasons.

******
This from Facebook:-

Chas Berry 'Can't be bothered anymore'? Bottom line is we are totally opposed to the job cuts and continue to be so. At the same time we have a duty to those staff who have had enough to secure the best terms rather than face compulsory redundancy which could be on a last-in-first-out basis. If you read the whole statement you will see WHAT ARE THE UNIONS DOING

******
Sad that dumbing down everyone's entitlement across six CRCs is seen as democratic. Three of the six CRCs embedded enhanced terms into their CRC t&c's. Insightful? Fortuitous? Planned? I don't know, but my CRC did just that. I'd like my terms & conditions honoured, thanks very much. Colleagues who left last year got preferential terms, some even got CRC jobs as well! NAPO could have advised CRCs to embed t&c's, in fact, they should have advised members of everything instead of playing this "I can't tell you" shit.

In deeply unhappy & shitty circumstances I have perfectly acceptable EVR t&c's which NAPO seemed determined to relinquish so that others can grab a few more pennies. 15 months' money for 24 years' unblemished service (& 24 years' fully paid up membership) is poor, but manageable. 7 months' money is derisory.