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?
As someone who took my company to an employment tribunal and won my case for unfair dismissal I can tell anyone this is no easy option. I had been with my company for 31 years since I left school when they sacked me without a moments thought. Workers now have less rights than they have done for a long time and can be emplyed on short term contracts and flexible working arrangements, as in we will let you know what your shift is tomorrow. I do not believe any other country in Europe as such flexible arrangments for employees? Still the coalition government as come up with this term “Red tape Challenge” and is fixated on employment issue’s. It seems to me Business and the tory party like to act tough and talk big but only when the odds are in their favour and this legislation would be another advantage. In my own case I was up against a multinational company with a very expensive legal team who in most cases would have won and will win. The money that this must cost is astronomical but they consider it worth it to assert their power and have a subdued workforce. In short this is nothing less than a cowardly proprosition that would further erode employees, including hard working ones who may have made the comany what it is and made shareholders wealthy, rightS to any sense of justice and fairplay. I could say what else would you expect from the tories, as for the liberal democrats, how dodgy did they turn out to be?Comment Tags: fairplay?