Letting people go
These regulations set out rules and procedures around letting people go, from notice of termination to redundancy payments.
You can find the regulations that relate to letting people go below to the left.
|
Collective Redundancies (Amendment) Regulations 2006 This regulation implements a European Court of Justice judgement to clarify the steps an employer must take before issuing dismissal notices in large-scale redundancies
|
|
Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 The Regulations require the employer to consult either elected representatives of the employees or representatives of a recognised trade union where there are to be redundancies or a transfer of an undertaking. They also limit the requirement to consult about redundancies to cases where at least 20 redundancies are proposed. The Regulations also provide protection for elected representatives against dismissal and against being subjected to any other detriment and confer on them a right to time off with pay to carry out their functions.
|
|
Redundancy Payments (Exemption) (No 1) Order 1969, Schemes authorised by the Secretary of State for Employment under Section 157 Employment Rights Act 1996. These schemes are a substitute for the statutory payments under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and are at least as high as them.
|
|
Redundancy Payments (Exemption) (No 1) Order 1970, Schemes authorised by the Secretary of State for Employment under Section 157 Employment Rights Act 1996. These schemes are a substitute for the statutory payments under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and are at least as high as them.
|
|
Redundancy Payments (Exemption) Order 1980 This order exempts employees of certain governing bodies of Lancashire County Council from a statutory redundancy scheme.
|
|
Redundancy Payments Office Holders Regulations 1965, These Regulations apply, with the necessary modifications, the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 to the office holders specified therein.
|
|
Redundancy Payments Termination of Employment Regulations 1965, These Regulations apply, with the necessary modifications, the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 to a chief constable or a chief or assistant chief officer of a fire brigade who becomes redundant as a result of an amalgamation of police forces or combination of fire brigades.
|
|
Unfair Dismissal and Statement of Reasons for Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 1999, This order lowered the qualifying period of continuous employment needed to acquire the right not to be unfairly dismissed from two years to one year. It also lowered the qualifying period of continuous employment needed for the entitlement , on request, to a written statement of reasons for dismissal from two years to one year and the relevant transitional arrangements for both.
|
Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:
- Should we scrap them altogether?
- Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
- Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
- Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
- Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
- Should they be left as they are?
People often surrender because they know that they can’t afford a lawyer and crazy tribunal fees and fear to lose money because no matter what judges will listen more to a big compny lawyer than to an average person. Unfair dismissal unfortunately is a common problem that leads to people tolerating harassment and bullying at work because they’re afraid to be dismissed. Everyone has equal rights to their say and people don’t have to pay crazy money to get justce. If this doesn’t stop, people will be reluctant even more to get employedComment Tags: unfair dismissal
stop allowing the employers to ride rough shot over their employee’s,employment law is meant to protect the individuals rights.the toll puddle martyr’s will have died in vain if we allow spuriuos claims from big bosses this is blatant power grabbing in a recession.the world will not end if the banks had been allowed collapse.just as the economy cannot grow without a strong workforce who are confident that they have rights whenever it comes to fair employment law.lack of confidence in the goverments ability to hold companies to account will lead to lack of spending at the shops which will hurt the recovery and further hold back the tide of power hungry bosses.
back the only people who can save the economy thats the average working man and woman who need the protection that this legislation provides.
I think dismissal legislation should be tightened with employers being required to pay dismissed employees more than the current rules provide for. Everyone should be entitled to 3 months notice and compensation for loss of job regardless of length of service, this would simplify the situation so that all employers were clear on their obligations. It is too easy to hire and fire and the current proposals will only compound this a prevent workers (who will have to pay to access Tribunal- against laws of natural justice). Big job losses should cost companies big money, they then might think twice about exporting work or closing UK factories against other European plants.
it is bad enough as it is to keep a job in this economic climate so weakening the law on unfair dismissal will only make maters worse in the long run unlike mp,s and civil servants private sector workers are often subject to summary dismissal.
I think we should leave the legislation at one year, working class people have a hard enough time as it is,If it remains at the given level at the companies will be less possibilities to arrive not fairly,if term increases that courts will be filled up by claims
Payment by workers for applying to Tribunals and extending time limit to two years would deny many workers their right to sue an employer. This is wrong because it will encourage bad employers to mistreat staff knowing they will not be taken to a tribunal. This will then put pressure on good employers to follow in order to maintain their position.
I dont think that it is at all fair that a person should have to be employed for two years before being able to go to Tribunal, this is a very long time if you are suffering from discrmination or any hardship at work. dont change the law for the worse.Comment Tags: face book
Another stupid idea just to get more money out of the working class.
this would make an unfair advantage to the employers as people wouldn’t be able to pay the up front fees
it shouldnt be helping the employers sack people whenever they feel like it thne making the OUT OF WORK employee pay a sum to fight his case it shouldbe the other way round the employer should pay a sum to be able to sack the employee without a valid reason ie if theyr stealing from work tehey can get sacked for free if the employer just doesnt like his stafff they must pay to get rid of him as he will no longer have a job and will go for a while without money this is a classic case of the big men in suits pikcing on the little men doing the hard work
This is not right as only poor people will be effected the most as they can’t afford to pay such a huge costs. government are making the rich and poor gap wider and wider
As an mature worker I am dismayed at all of the benefits achieved by previous workers struggles against governments and employers are so easily given up ie premium rates for shifts, overtime etc. This in my mind is a further assault on those that are least able to stand against poor managers and uncaring employers allowing the further rise of the Hire and Fire Brigade. May I also add that very very few of the people I have worked with over the years have ever used this route purely for the hassle involved let alone any offputting upfront fee ! This proposed change is not in the workers best interest and should be resistedComment Tags: Tribunal change
People should not have to pay any money to take a claim to an industrial tribunal.
Leave well enough alone. Another ploy by the rich to oppress the poor. It has taken a whole generation to get this far with emploment law, don`t let it go.
who so ever make a law like this tell him or her keep your self in place , and think is gonna be a good decision ? please don’t make people like difficult in the era .
Another attack on the poor working class. Another huge obstacle in the path of those who are unjustly treated by bad or unscrupulous employers. Why should the lower paid have to PAY to get justice when rich fat cat directors are PAID, by virtue of golden handshakes, for getting the sack ??!!Comment Tags: Tribunal Injustice
Ithink we should leave the legislation at one year, working class people have a hard enough time as it is, and charging people up front is ridiculous. It would just mean employees wouldn’t be able to afford to stand up for themselves!!!
leave it as it is
we seem to be going back in time with workers slowly and surely about to lose all the rights that unions have fought for,the goverment have over the past 30 years closed down manufacture/car industry/young training schemes,so that low paid jobs are used to keep employee rights down with proper living standards with removing workers rights we will go back in time to the depression days when workers lined up for work with no protectionComment Tags: depression
i think there should be no unfair dismissal