Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Collective redundancyEmployment lawLatest NewsEmployment contractsRedundancy

The legal risks of cutting redundancy pay

by Joanna Sutton 31 Jan 2024
by Joanna Sutton 31 Jan 2024 Photograph: Loch Earn / Shutterstock.com
Photograph: Loch Earn / Shutterstock.com

As John Lewis announces that it is cutting enhanced redundancy pay by half, employers looking to follow suit should beware of the legal risks. Joanna Sutton looks at the problems around cutting redundancy pay.

Redundancies have risen sharply over the past year as employers have struggled to adapt to rapid-fire interest rate rises and persistently high inflation. This has meant many organisations have had to make difficult decisions about staffing levels.

According to the Office of National Statistics, the redundancy rate per 1,000 employees is up 56% over the past year from 2.3 to 3.6. The UK jobs market is also in turmoil, with vacancies experiencing their biggest monthly fall in three years in December, which suggests that more employers are likely to shed jobs.

One of the ironies of redundancy is that when employers find themselves contemplating it, they are generally least able to afford it. The temptation therefore will be to follow the example set by the John Lewis Partnership and make changes to the enhanced redundancy scheme prior to making layoffs.

Cutting redundancy pay

What to do when making staff redundant

How to conduct a fair redundancy process

Last week the company, which owns both Waitrose and John Lewis brands, wrote to employees to confirm it would be offering one week’s pay per year of service instead of two for anyone being made redundant from 1 February 2024. It also reportedly considering cutting 11,000 jobs.

While many organisations are likely to be considering the affordability of their redundancy packages in the current climate, it is important to tread carefully and pay heed to the legal implications of making wholesale changes. This is particularly true when those changes immediately presage a round of layoffs.

End of bumper payouts?

Data from HMRC reveals that the number of employees receiving redundancy payments above the £30,000 tax-free threshold (based on self-assessment returns) fell from 8,240 in 2014/15 to just 4,030 in 2021/22, a decline of 51%. Employees receiving redundancy payouts up to the £30,000 tax-free threshold has also declined dramatically. The number dropped by 48% since 2014/15, from 18,670 to 9,710.

As the economic malaise continues to bite, employees may need to accept that bumper redundancy payouts may be a thing of the past. However, with the cost-of-living crisis eroding personal finances, some may feel aggrieved if they receive less in redundancy than they were hoping for. With opportunities for alternative employment dwindling, disputes and tribunal claims could proliferate.

Typically, employers may be liable for enhanced redundancy payments due to the contractual terms of employment for some or all of their employees. Redundancy terms may be set out in individual employment contracts, or in another document such as the staff handbook which may be contractual. Where employers often slip up is failing to realise that it is also possible for employees to benefit from an implied contractual entitlement to enhanced redundancy pay.

Implied contractual terms

Employers are likely to have long-serving staff who are contractually entitled to enhanced redundancy while more recent joiners are not. Even if enhanced redundancy is discretionary, the scheme can run the risk of becoming an implied contractual term over time if there is an expectation that it will continue to be paid due to custom and practice. This is a trap many employers fall into, which can spark claims from disgruntled employees who receive less than they were expecting.

Employers can therefore inadvertently find themselves bound by implied terms that are undesirable and should also be aware that previous custom and practice needs to be considered in the early stages of planning redundancies. One of the ways to offset this risk is to consider an express contractual term which makes it clear that enhanced redundancy payments are solely discretionary.

Even if enhanced redundancy is discretionary, the scheme can run the risk of becoming an implied contractual term over time if there is an expectation that it will continue to be paid due to custom and practice.”

Employers should also refrain from publicising enhanced redundancy payments, such as on an intranet or as part of a redundancy consultation process.

Benefits applied consistently whenever redundancies are made will point to a contractual entitlement. As such, the amounts and terms of payment should be varied and negotiated afresh in respect of each redundancy.

Employers should also take pains to use language which does not point to a contractual right. Avoiding the word “entitlement”, for example, may seem obvious but it is surprising how often that word appears in policies that are supposed to be discretionary.

Crucially, schemes which include age or length of service criteria must be objectively justified. As contractual enhanced redundancy pay used to be much more common, this may result in a two-tier workforce in which older workers may be more likely to be eligible for generous payouts. This can spark age discrimination claims from younger workers if they do not receive enhanced redundancy payouts calculated on the same basis.

There is a tendency to think of age discrimination claims as originating from older workers but in relation to disputes over redundancy payments the reverse is usually the case.

Enhanced redundancy payments are a way to cushion the blow for employees and tide them over while they seek alternative work. In these straitened times, however, employees are more likely to think they have little to lose by contesting changes to enhanced redundancy packages. Employers should tread carefully.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

 

HR Director opportunities on Personnel Today


Browse more HR director jobs

Joanna Sutton

Joanna Sutton is a principal associate at Nockolds. She specialises in employment law, assisting businesses and individuals with all types of work-related issues. She advises on flexible working requests, long term sickness absence, TUPE, and disciplinary and grievance procedures, including employment tribunal claims.

previous post
Labour government would not reinstate bankers’ bonus cap
next post
University research staff on ‘gig-economy’ contracts

You may also like

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

Construction workers win compensation claim against defunct employer

9 May 2025

British Steel puts brakes on redundancy process

23 Apr 2025

British Steel: MPs recalled to enable nationalisation

11 Apr 2025

Met Police cuts 1,700 officers and staff in...

3 Apr 2025

Top 10 HR questions March 2025: Carrying over...

2 Apr 2025

Sky to close call centres cutting 2,000 jobs

28 Mar 2025

Reasons behind Dundee University job losses to be...

28 Mar 2025

British Steel to shed 2,700 jobs at Scunthorpe...

27 Mar 2025

April 2025: What’s coming up for HR?

21 Mar 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+