Sodexo have started sending letters out regarding severance, but you must get legal advice and are only re-imbersed if you enter into an agreement:-
This is an early email confirmation that your application for voluntary severance package has been accepted, subject to you signing the legally binding settlement agreement. A formal letter and agreement are being posted to your home address. Please note that the agreements will only be printed tomorrow afternoon in time for the post.
The settlement agreement is only legally binding if you have had independent legal advice on the effect of the agreement. The independent relevant advisor must be either: a qualified lawyer; a certified and authorised officer, employee or member of an independent trade union; or a certified and authorised advice centre worker; and in all cases they must have a current contract of insurance or professional indemnity insurance in place covering the risk of a claim from you. Providing you enter into a settlement agreement, we are prepared to contribute up to a maximum of £250 (plus VAT) towards the cost of the independent legal advice you receive and the payment will be made directly to your adviser.
In the agreement you may see a different leaving date to that you requested. If this is the case it is because of wider workforce planning considerations. This leaving date is non-negotiable unless there are exceptional circumstances and will only be considered on that basis.
Also in the agreement is the amount of severance pay you will receive (if any). Please note that any statutory redundancy payment is included in this compensation payment.
Should you wish to accept the offer of voluntary severance, you are required to return a signed settlement agreement. For the settlement agreement to be valid, you must have received independent legal advice. The deadline for the receipt of your signed, original agreement is 4 September 2015 (unless in exceptional circumstances an extension date has been given). If I do not hear from you by this deadline, I will determine that you no longer wish to progress your voluntary severance application. If that is the case then I must inform you that you will be considered alongside others (who did not apply for voluntary severance) in the pool for compulsory redundancy. However, if you are clear even before this deadline that you do not wish to pursue your application I would ask you to inform Anita Dixon, Head of HR, accordingly. In this case you will also be placed in the pool of staff 'at risk' of compulsory redundancy alongside others who did not apply for voluntary severance.
If you have any questions relating to this, please contact your senior manager in the first instance. However, if the question relates to the calculation of your severance pay, then please contact Anita.
Thanks
Nick
Unless it is simply being stated in order to bully applicants for VS to accept the offer, I cannot understand why Nick is at pains to remind potential rejectors that they will go into the 'at risk' pool alongside others who did not apply. In his earlier note, of 19/8, it was 'only likely' you would go into the pool and there was not mention that others who did not apply would be alongside. Now he says, 'you will' go into the 'at risk' pool. On the back of this logic it would unlikely that anyone avoids being in the 'at risk' pool. There is an updated GS note on the Napo website intimating some support from the MoJ. Against the background of these ongoing discussions applicants are in a position where they may accept offers which may in time turn out not to have been Sodexo's best offer.
ReplyDeletePossibly Nick is on a bonus for the number of severance resignations he can attract which will save Sodexo shed loads of money as it is cheaper than redundancy and the positions can then be retained but filled with a lower paid workers.
DeleteOtherwise it will be harder for Sodexo to cover the work, in the event of them needing more staff, even though obviously they are no longer seeing probation work for the majority of clients being dependent on continuous one to one long term professional relationships.
Presumably any professional probation type scruples Nick may once have had are now almost non existent, as he and his managerial team carry through on wrecking the spirit of probation work in accordance with the wishes of the likes of Lord McNally, Simon Hughes and Nick Clegg along with the Tory greed merchants, the populace elected.
I wouldn't know if its yachts or Spanish villas that appeals to Nick, but this Gordon Gekko of probation will have enough for both.
DeleteI suspect some of the comments expressed here about the whole TR shambles and dangers from which some are profiting is connected with the fact that linking is still (mostly) prevented by Twitter, presumably because of the volume of complaints from those who prefer the content seen by as few people as possible.
DeleteA PR strategy does not involve just trying to confuse and present the irrelevant but by actively discouraging the reading of content that is not helpful to the cause of shareholders or politician's and such like.
Sadly we cannot really tell who posts what here because very few even take the time to design themselves a pseudonym, so that their posts can be linked one with another, yet they have the audacity to attack the content of others who at least identify themselves with a name.
I consider that truly integrity lite - and hope for some responses, especially from CRC and MOJ/NOMS?NPS PR folk who are bold enough to at least use a consistent pseudonym.
I still recall when the head of the MOJ security service was checking me out on Link'din and how after I commented he adjusted his settings to became anonymous after! (Shows how useless are the MOJ in their appointment of folk ).
I think that is one of the highlights of my social media efforts - though sadly at best only a bit of pride has been dented - probation has still been seriously harmed and life made potentially more dangerous for all in England and Wales by the splitting of probation. (We must never forget that)
So we might end up wih a situation where our unions have negotiated a 4 tier programme of leavers - those already given EVR, those who take voluntary severance as it now stands, those who take voluntary severance as it might be next week, & those who are made compulsorily redundant. Throw into the mix the terms & conditions which Northumbria & Lancs incorporated & we have at least 6 ways to leave your employer.
ReplyDeleteIf EVR had been honoured, paid for as it was by the UK taxpayer, it would have been a simple exercise, less painful, less expensive, less damaging all round. MoJ & Sodexo need their backsides tanned.
If you want fox the fox then you have to out think the logic. They only win if you or anyone actually agrees. The same for NAPO. Make them SACK through compulsory measures and they cannot simply replace your job. Any fiddle to do so will make NAPO take cases to ET CLAIM THE LOT IN DAMAGES.
DeleteWe can't legislate for individual choice by non-union members, nor for those who are union members but who choose to go because the politics of fear have won through. That will be why Northumbria Nick can claim he's almost achieved the required losses through voluntary severance.
DeleteAs far as I understand it the Unions have been clear they will not consider pursuing expensive Employment Tribunals.
Can you reference when Napo made it clear they ruled out referrals to employment tribunals? I am not aware of any such statement.
DeleteHave they not protected themselves from any type of post severance legal action by including the proviso that independent legal advice must be taken ?
DeleteAnon 12:02 There is no such statement - doesn't mean my assertion is not correct though - there will be no ETs funded by Napo.
DeleteHi if you have a contents insurance policy for your property, please check to see whether it includes a redundancy section. I was made redundant checked my insurance policy and after review he insurance company agreed that I stood more than a 50% of winning an ET and supported me at the ET. Solicitor took the details and barrister represented me at the ET. As I had been based at court for a while, the barrister told me that the employer’s barrister had not laid a glove on me. Start reading all your insurance documents.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon 12:23 a timely reminder, thank you! I have posted here before about insurance policies - this is often on your buildings and contents insurance as an add-on that most people simply do not notice but your policy must exist prior to being on notice of redundancy. Most policies will also cover "employment issues" leaving a wider definition of issues you can seek advice on. Slater and Gordon (solicitors) acted for a case I know of when NAPO refused ET support and an out of court settlement was reached in employees favour. I think NAPO should come clean and if there is no support for ET ( our ultimate action) they should say so. I am asking the question and will cancel my subs if not and rely on my insurer as this is far cheaper.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Anonymous24 August 2015 at 13:15. NAPO coming clean and doing the right thing, dont make me larf. They want to take our subs and feather their own nests
ReplyDeleteMore pro Sodexo bullsh*t. NAPO are not in it for themselves. The argument does not bear close examination in any way. This is simply mischief making.
DeleteYour legal advisor can simply be 'a member of an independent union' according to the wording of the letter. So, if you'd decided you were going to jump ship anyway, get your partner (or a mate) to join a union and for the price of the joining fee, there's 250 quid plus vat that you can invoice them for and put behind the bar.
ReplyDeleteNot any member of a trade union, but a certified and authorised member and the advisor must have professional indemnity insurance. If your partner, or mate, meets these requirements, then the money can be put behind the bar.
DeleteIm skint, I can be your McKenzie mate lol
ReplyDeleteI do think get it. Your offered cash not to work and your kicking off. Confused.com
ReplyDelete30 year veteran admin officer in the CRC gets severance aka booted out while the NPS are crying out for skilled experienced staff, and is then assessed by some lickspittle as not having the required qualifications........you couldn't make it up........good luck to all those colleagues who have decided to get out.......
ReplyDeleteLuv it lickspittles in the NPS. Mutating like a deadly virus !
Deletethey've obviously made an enemy - it can be the only reason if she's got all that experience.
DeleteCould be CS protocols like if you have a pimple on your bum.
DeleteShe? How do you know the administration officer is female? Sorry but......
ReplyDeleteI'm a Lady, I like ladies things..Although I did do 20 years + as a man clerk. I'd find it extraordinary, if I were so inclined, to find myself rejected on those grounds, having served before the split. I'm speculating that it's maybe someone who has excellent typing and shorthand skills that were all you needed as a 'secretary', which yer old admin' joined as but one must have the GCSEs for to be a civil servant and yer jobsworth is not paying no heed to your perfectly adequate experience. The class system rears its ugly head. 4 legs good, 2 legs bad. Yet, if your name was only in the right bin during the sift...!
DeleteMaybe the admins face doesn't fit. Cant see that they dont have the pre requisite skills when they have been doing the job for so long..................................................................... Is VS, CS, just a way of getting rid of folk. Just sayin
ReplyDelete