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?
Extending the service qualification before being able to
claim unfair dismissal from one year to two years and forcing tribunal applicants to
pay an up front deposit is a very bad idea. Access to justice should be available to everyone, regardless of their means to pay.Comment Tags: bartlomiej zindulski, usdaw
Every single employee deserves to be treated fairly by their employer. These new rules undermine this principle completely, making it easier for employers to do as they please and far harder for people put things right.
In my opinion there should be no restrictions whatsoever on when you can get a tribunal for unfair dismissal, and forcing someone who has recently been made unemployed to pay up front is not only unfair, but ridiculous.
I have been with my employer for less than a year and if I am dismissed and I feel it is unfair I will take action, whether or not I have access to a tribunal, and I would expect nothing less from any other employee. It is the responsibility of our government to support us in this, not to hinder us.Comment Tags: employment, government, Legislation, tribunal, unfair dismissal, usdaw
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
If the Government extends the period before an individual employee has to work before being allowed to claim unfair dismissal to 2 years then the message to employers is that it is quite acceptable to treat people unfairly until they have been there for 2 years. Making the possibility of a hearing to consider fairness more difficult whether by extending the service required or by making people pay a charge or deposit all points to the belief that employers should really have a free hand to sack or treat workers as they wish. Another example of us being ‘all in this together’?Comment Tags: usdaw
Get the real labour party back in to power and rid us of the capitalist coalition, All legislation is there to protect the workers from unscrupolous companys.Comment Tags: usdaw