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?
I don’t personally think the government should be extending the time to two years; it’s just too long. Really a person could lose their job at any time and for any reason. Especially nowadays, what with the economy being so bad, employers are desperately looking for ways to save money just to keep their businesses afloat. And sadly sometimes the first place they start is with the workers. It’s happened in my working experience. As a brief example, if your employer is trying to save the pennies and thinks they could get one person to do a job that normally requires two people, they’ll most likely slump the work onto that one hapless person and get rid of the other one. I’ve seen this done before too.
My point is that no matter how long you’ve been working at your job, whether it’s 1 year, 2 years or even a month! Every employee should have the right to fight against unfair dismissal. In my opinion they shouldn’t be talking about extending it, what they should be talking about is reducing it!
I mean come on people, think about it from a moral point of view here, if it’s an UNFAIR dismissal then it’s not right is it? We all know the difference from right and wrong and in this particular circumstance justice needs to be done and I don’t think that the employer should be allowed to get off the hook with it just because the person has been there for less than two years! I mean what the heck is all that about!? And I also don’t think that the employee should have to pay a fine, I mean that’s just absurd right there. So what are we saying to these poor people that have just lost their jobs? “Yeah mate I know you’ve just lost your job and all but I don’t think you’ve suffered quite enough yet, so guess what? Now we’re going to make you pay us a hefty fine! Have a nice life!!”
Where do these people get off? Seriously!? I mean picture it, this poor person has just lost their job and now some other guy (who by the way has still got their job!) is now telling you “oops you lost well guess you’ll have to pay up now?” When the heck did life become like an over sized monopoly board? That’s what I’m wondering! They’ve just lost their job and to add insult to injury they’ve got to part with whatever little money they have left and give it to some guy who’s got more money than he knows what to do with!
No it’s totally wrong and I’m against it completely.Comment Tags: dismissal, government, jobs, Redundancy, unfair, wrong
I think it is totally unfair, making individuals open to abuse . Even the current service qulaification of one year is too long. Why should a tax paying individual have to pay for a tribunial?Comment Tags: abuse, tribunial, unfair
Unfair dissmissal qualifications should NOT be extended from one to two years. This would strip many people of their hard-won rights to claim unfair dissmissal. Also, a deposit system would be grossly unfair if introduced, leaving those dissmissed with fees to pay at a time when they are newly unemployed in a depressed job market…again adding insult to injury. To Conclude: Unfair dissmissal laws should remain as they are!Comment Tags: dismissal, unfair, usdaw
I believe it is unfair to make an employee pay a fee upfront for a claim to a tribunal after already being unfairly dissmised. If anything for a fee to be involved I believe it would be seen to be fairer if the fee was given to whom ever lost the tribunal e.g. if the employee was to win the tribunal then the employer should have to pay and visa-versa. Finally I would like to add the justice should be accessable to everyone regardless of their means to pay!Comment Tags: dismissal, shocking, unfair, unfair dismissal
Once again the changes appear to be moving in favour of employers. Yet more rights are being taken away from hardworking people.Comment Tags: unfair
I work for a well known London Store.I have seen many good and honest hard woking people treated very unfairly including myself.The goverment doesn’t care about the workers.It makes no difference which party.The British people need to stand up and fight for their rights,but they will not.They just roll over and find a way of living with it. It is nothing new to see the workers trampled on. Taking away unfair dismissal in the first year of employment and making us pay a premium up front for the tribunal is just another way of keeping us down and in our place.Comment Tags: bullying, state, unfair, wrong