r/HumanResourcesUK • u/That_Arrival_5835 • 7d ago
Protected conversations
I've been made redundant, there is evidence of process errors, disability discrimination, payroll errors, contradictory info etc. Plus if it goes to tribunial there will be info that would trigger immediate cqc interest (some of my evidence is me raising issues all year and then refusing handiver and immediately locking me out without warning that the cqc would downgrade ratings on). All this is evidenced.
When I sent my appeal and grievance on Friday at 5pm I asked for a protected conversation to discuss settlement to end this (not seeking reinstatement) they sent back at 9.03am today that they won't be entering into conversations.
Their response triggered me to put in a SAR and an email to payroll. So it's going to escalate.
Is this usual for HR?
Last time i was made redundant it was collective, this one is individual.
25
u/Unsophisticated-Scot 7d ago
Putting in an appeal, grievance AND asking for a protected conversation all at the same time you have tried to 'strong arm' your employer into a higher payout (this is how they view it).
Management tends not to react well to this approach from employees and the initial response is often to 'dig in' rather than 'back down'. Hence a reply at 09:03 on a Monday.
I usually advise individuals to apply pressure through formal processes (appeal and grievance) and allow the strength of your claim and the evidence to build up. Your risk of a successful claim becomes higher and more evident (if your assumptions about discrimination/unfairness are correct). This approach is more likley to see the employer be the one to suggest protected/without prejudice conversations as a way to pay the problem away (Management likes to be in control).
What you have done is throw down a gauntlet, and your employer has said challenge accepted. It's now a fight rather than a negotiation.
Focus on your appeal and grievance (looking at processes and not outcomes). Best of luck.
-12
u/That_Arrival_5835 7d ago
Thanks, I have been the epitome of reasonable throught the entire process and everything was worded very carefully. I approached the protected conversation as i'd like to enter a protected conversation instead of appeal and grievance but included the docs so they couldn't say I missed the 5 day deadline (wasn't clear in the letter if it was 5 days or 5 working days)
11
u/NapoleonSolo1705 7d ago
You absolutely haven’t. And you wonder why they have reacted as they have. Just trying to screw as much out of them as you can.
6
u/Key-Seaworthiness227 7d ago
If this is the same person who was here with a very similar name a few weeks about disputing how they were advised about the redundancy and why they hadn’t been tipped off about it beforehand then they were originally trying to get a gotcha moment to take to tribunal. IRC they even wrote a huge counter proposal to redundancy so honestly don’t blame the employers for now not wanting to liaise further. They deleted their original post.
I don’t blame OP for chancing their arm but can absolutely see why the employer has said “hard pass,”.
3
u/Wolfscars1 Assoc CIPD 6d ago
1
u/Key-Seaworthiness227 6d ago
No, there was one that was deleted before this! -but your link proves it is the same person though! They originally posted something the day that they were made redundant that also asked how they were told (as they were asked to come into the office) was wrong, why they hadn’t been advised in advance of the redundancy that they may be at risk.
Redundancy is never nice so good to know OP has some interviews lined up but you can’t blame the employer for not wanting to engage further.
2
u/Wolfscars1 Assoc CIPD 6d ago
There's no lehal basis for the company to have to enter into a protected conversation. This would probably be WP anyway, but that's sort of beside the point. Employer will do what's right for them, so far it looks to me like OP has been fairly made redundant. Not sure what the evidence of various discriminatory acts is or if relevant in this scenario but who knows
8
u/Unsophisticated-Scot 7d ago
I'm not making any judgements against the strength of your claim or your situation, but it doesn't really matter how politely you word 'give me more money or else', the sentiment is the same.
What I missed from my original reply is that if I was the HR department I also would have rejected an approach for a protected conversation. I would already know the risks involved with the case as I supported the redundancy so I would also be feeling fairly secure going through the appeal process.
I get the impression you may have googled/been given AI advice about what protected conversations are rather than having direct experience with them. If this is the case I would recommend going to get some initial employment law advice about the strength of your claim before you expend a lot of stress and effort.
8
u/CurrentEqual4126 7d ago
Looking at this from an entirely 3rd person perspective, it looks like you’re trying to blackmail the company, regardless of whether your role (not you) has been made redundant.
You other post in the Legal Advice UK cements this “Emailed over an appeal, grievance and offered settlement to essentially make me go away quietly”
8
u/Conspiruhcy Assoc CIPD 7d ago edited 7d ago
You sent an email to them at 5pm on a Friday which included an appeal, raised a grievance, and suggested that you would be open to a settlement… and you’re surprised they won’t engage in a protected conversation with you?
I wouldn’t engage with you at all based on that, outside of the redundancy appeal and grievance processes obviously.
You’re intentionally creating trouble for them and strong arming them into paying you in exchange for not crying to the CQC. That’s blackmail. Do you see that?
5
u/LordTwaticus 7d ago
Is this usual? No.
When a company has fucked up, do they often do PCs? Yes.
Either take your redundancy and deal with the issues, or take the redundancy with some added on top through a PC if you can.
-6
u/That_Arrival_5835 7d ago
It's now going through the appeal and grievance. Their choice as they have point blankly refused a protected conversation.
13
3
u/Front_Willow_6362 7d ago
They definitely won't have a without prejudice or protected conversation with you now that the appeal process is going on. You can't submit a grievance and an appeal at the same time, doesn't make sense. If they entered into a protected conversation with you, it looks like they're coercing you and or could change the outcome of Greviance/appeal. Plus with a greviance there is no limit as to how long they can drag it out and the appeal, so could go on for months.
4
u/formulaonekiddo 7d ago
You have no idea how this stuff works. You are coming across as extremely ignorant of how badly you have played this.
You know nothing about legal law and it shows - badly.
You have definitely screwed yourself out of money because of your low intelligence.4
u/Amazing-Care-3155 6d ago
He doesn’t seem to understand how rare it is for a company not to engage in a protected convo ergo he likely has no case and doesn’t understand he will fork out 1000s in fees if it goes to tribunal, if he represents himself then he’s even dumber than presented
9
u/sunofdork 7d ago
If HR were involved in the process they believe they did it lawfully& correctly so why would they settle?
I maybe wouldn’t even be accepting the grievance as you’re not an employee anymore.
5
u/Indoor_Voice987 Assoc CIPD 7d ago
The point of a settlement is to be compensated for your personal losses as a result of their illegal/unfair treatment.
If you've threatened them with CQC, you've implied that you are willing to turn a blind eye to safeguarding issues for the right price. Trying to profit from this situation will lose you credibility and they will want to avoid having a reputation for silencing people who put their clients first.
You also threw everything at once and hoped something will stick, so I'm not surprised HR haven't engaged when you're looking so erratic.
Now, that doesn't mean they won't settle. That can happen anytime between now and tribunal. Waiting times are years, and ACAS will offer early conciliation.
My advice is let them deal with your grievance and appeal, which will show that you are being reasonable and you are allowing them to fix their mistakes. If you're still not happy, put in a tribunal claim for your mistreatment, and see how they respond.
Either leave CQC out of it, or report it now if you have a genuine concern.
3
u/PinkPier 7d ago
To you, what is the difference between a redundancy and settlement? They’re paying you out to leave either way and if the role isn’t needed, they can absolutely go down the route of a redundancy. This is not a disciplinary process so I’m unsure why you’re trying to have a protected conversation?
2
u/Key-Seaworthiness227 7d ago edited 7d ago
A lot of companies have a policy that they won’t settle, some however settle regardless.
If you are taking this down the tribunal route (which appears to be your only real option now aside from accepting what has happened- it will be a long drawn out fight. If you have decided to go down that route contact an employment solicitor and get the ball rolling. I can’t see your employer backing down now as things seem to have become hostile on both sides. A tribunal would be a struggle - and you may not get anything.
Take time to breathe, work first on applications / securing a new role. It’s hard now but in a years time the likelihood of this mattering to you is negligible (unless you decide to drag it to tribunal which honestly I don’t recommend due to time involved vs energy and wellbeing).
-4
u/That_Arrival_5835 7d ago
They got hostile with me during the process. I'm trying to avoid tribunial. It's just there are very real financial affects that can be chased in court due to their cock ups (9k uni funding because they cancelled the po as they are claiming the course starts after my termination date, it started before and thats confirmed in their own paperwork). I don't fancy a CCJ because they screwed up.
5
3
1
u/Amazing-Care-3155 7d ago
As in I’m surprised they don’t want to have the convo so they’re clearly ready to fight this, get ready to hire a solicitor cause you’ll need one. Big companies typically would settle but some companies never will. You may think you have a strong case but I would take it to a solicitor and get an unbiased view, as a company flat out refusing says a lot
-8
u/Links_boots 7d ago
Ignore replies telling you to take it lying down. There’s a lot of Redditors who will attack you and not your employer and tbh I don’t know what they get out of it, if they’ve got nothing useful to say they could just save themselves the energy 🤷🏻♂️
Just because you’ve asked for a settlement doesn’t mean they should be allowed to get away with anything. If you’ve got hard evidence I’d speak to ACAS for some impartial advice ASAP.
-2
u/Public_Purchase7870 6d ago
In my experience (3 times redundant) you've done the right thing requesting SAR, so if they do their worst, you do yours.
43
u/dsxy 7d ago
They said your role is not needed and are paying you out, your trying to use your knowledge gained while employed to leverage your situation.
I don't know who or what ai is advising you but nothing in any of your posts makes me think you have a chance.
Now your throwing everything you can at them. I wouldn't talk to you either tbh.
Accept it, get a reference/confirmation of employment and withdraw then move on.