administration

[carol01]

Re: administration

whilst the joint administators are willing to consent to the statutory administration moratorium being lifted, the joint administrators feel that it would appropriate to do so on 21/03/2013 rather than with immediate effect. the stay imposed by the president has been helpful in allowing the joint administrators time to take stock of the numerous claims recieved and commence steps to organise itself administratively.


I bet they would like it! Don't give them an inch. It's taken me over a year to nail the beggars down.

I would apply to the court to have the stay lifted as soon as possible. They may be taking their fees out on the 20th

vint
do you reckon deloittes are fobbing us off and not letting the case proceed until 20th march and then they want an extension of 28 days to sort out the claiments because of the new employment laws comming into force on 06/04/2013 like this one.

6. Collective consultation period is reduced to 45 days
The 90-day consultation period where 100 or more redundancies are proposed reduces to 45 days from 6 April 2013

will this effect us do you think ? also will this change in law effect us if the case has not been heard before summer ?

10. Fee for bringing employment tribunal claim imposed
The charging of a fee in employment tribunals, under which the claimant has to pay an initial fee to issue a claim and a further fee if the claim proceeds to a hearing, is introduced in summer 2013

i have sent my letter but have not heard anything back from the court as of yet but will let you know if and when i do
thanks carol01

[vint1954]

Re: administration

Hi Carol,

The new proposed regulations only refer to consultation within a business, for example if your employer wants to make 100 redundant within a 90 day period, he only needs to consult 45 days before the first redundancies.

If they fail to consult at all, as in your case, the PA remains at 90 days. See below.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has published draft regulations (The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment) Order 2013), which make changes to the rules relating to collective redundancy consultation.
Where an employer is proposing to dismiss as redundant 100 or more employees within a period of 90 days or less, the 90-day minimum consultation period necessary before the first dismissal takes effect is reduced to 45 days. The maximum protective award for failing to consult remains at 90 days, however.

They may think they are pulling a fast one, but they are daft enough to not to have digested the proposed regulation.

Your claim started before any cost implications or changes come into effect, so you will proceed on the old regs.

I can see the SOS for Biz trying to argue the 45 days, but you can soon put him right on that.

The employment court do say they respond within 14 days. If it goes to 21 I would give them a reminder.

It may pay you to find out who the case handler is. He is the Judges admin and should be the one who signs the letters. I used to email ours, not the judge though and they usually responded a bit quicker, but still by post.

I would imagine that if enough have asked for the stay to be lifted, then the Judge will have a hearing on his own to look at lifting the stay, then issue a Judgement that the claim is proceeding.

[carol01]

Re: administration

Hi Carol,

The new proposed regulations only refer to consultation within a business, for example if your employer wants to make 100 redundant within a 90 day period, he only needs to consult 45 days before the first redundancies.

If they fail to consult at all, as in your case, the PA remains at 90 days. See below.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has published draft regulations (The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment) Order 2013), which make changes to the rules relating to collective redundancy consultation.
Where an employer is proposing to dismiss as redundant 100 or more employees within a period of 90 days or less, the 90-day minimum consultation period necessary before the first dismissal takes effect is reduced to 45 days. The maximum protective award for failing to consult remains at 90 days, however.

They may think they are pulling a fast one, but they are daft enough to not to have digested the proposed regulation.

Your claim started before any cost implications or changes come into effect, so you will proceed on the old regs.

I can see the SOS for Biz trying to argue the 45 days, but you can soon put him right on that.

The employment court do say they respond within 14 days. If it goes to 21 I would give them a reminder.

It may pay you to find out who the case handler is. He is the Judges admin and should be the one who signs the letters. I used to email ours, not the judge though and they usually responded a bit quicker, but still by post.

I would imagine that if enough have asked for the stay to be lifted, then the Judge will have a hearing on his own to look at lifting the stay, then issue a Judgement that the claim is proceeding.

its only been 10 days since sending letter i feel as if its been longer will leave it another week and see what arrives in post you never know thanks for the advice ref the new employment law has put my mind at ease

[vint1954]

Re: administration

No problem Carol

[carol01]

Re: administration

fantastic news vint about the woolworths payout for lack of consultation for all stores with 20 or less staff well done just hope ours goes the same way

[vint1954]

Re: administration

fantastic news vint about the woolworths payout for lack of consultation for all stores with 20 or less staff well done just hope ours goes the same way

Well, you can now refer to it in your case.

[carol01]

Re: administration

Well, you can now refer to it in your case.

hi vint
i have had a bundle of papers through this morning ref protective pay
i am in schedule 3 of the bundle and it states this

19. Claimants who were employee representatives, in accordance with section 188 of TULRCA, are listed in Schedule 3 (the "Schedule 3 Claimants"). Schedule 3 excludes those Claimants who also qualify as Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 Claimants. No admissions are made as to whether the claims brought by the employee representatives listed in Schedule 3 are valid claims on behalf of affected employees at the establishment at which the employee representative was based. The legal arguments in relation to the Schedule 3 Claimants are set out in paragraphs 26 to 28.

26. It is averred that for those employees at Schedule 3 Comet did comply with its obligations under section 188 of TULRCA.
27. If, which is denied, Comet did not comply fully with its obligations under section 188 of TULRCA in consulting with the Claimants listed at Schedule 3, it is asserted that Comet took such steps towards compliance with the requirements of section 188 of TULRCA as were reasonably practical in the prevailing and urgent circumstances.
28. The Joint Administrators, on behalf of Comet, were making decisions on a real time basis in relation to the business to try to preserve its ongoing commercial viability for sale whilst at the same time seeking to maximise the level of return for creditors. Throughout this period Comet took such reasonable steps as it could to comply with its legal requirements, to keep employees informed and to consult with the employee representatives.
i assume this is them trying to get out of it what do you think
thanks vint

[vint1954]

Re: administration

hi vint
i have had a bundle of papers through this morning ref protective pay
i am in schedule 3 of the bundle and it states this

19. Claimants who were employee representatives, in accordance with section 188 of TULRCA, are listed in Schedule 3 (the "Schedule 3 Claimants"). Schedule 3 excludes those Claimants who also qualify as Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 Claimants. No admissions are made as to whether the claims brought by the employee representatives listed in Schedule 3 are valid claims on behalf of affected employees at the establishment at which the employee representative was based. The legal arguments in relation to the Schedule 3 Claimants are set out in paragraphs 26 to 28.

26. It is averred that for those employees at Schedule 3 Comet did comply with its obligations under section 188 of TULRCA.
27. If, which is denied, Comet did not comply fully with its obligations under section 188 of TULRCA in consulting with the Claimants listed at Schedule 3, it is asserted that Comet took such steps towards compliance with the requirements of section 188 of TULRCA as were reasonably practical in the prevailing and urgent circumstances.
28. The Joint Administrators, on behalf of Comet, were making decisions on a real time basis in relation to the business to try to preserve its ongoing commercial viability for sale whilst at the same time seeking to maximise the level of return for creditors. Throughout this period Comet took such reasonable steps as it could to comply with its legal requirements, to keep employees informed and to consult with the employee representatives.
i assume this is them trying to get out of it what do you think
thanks vint

Hi Carol, yes they seem to be trying.

It matters not a jot. The law is the law and you either got the required consultation or you did not. In these circumstances, the SOS for Biz picks up the protective award.

The other claim Deloitte have to pay is Wages owed including holiday pay. These are preferential debts.

We are just about to get ours from Deloitte, despite their prevarication. Then we go at them again.

[vint1954]

Re: administration

For the PA check out a 2012 ET case Cavendish Foods.

[carol01]

Re: administration

For the PA check out a 2012 ET case Cavendish Foods.

thanks vint will have a look now

[carol01]

Re: administration

Hi Carol, yes they seem to be trying.

It matters not a jot. The law is the law and you either got the required consultation or you did not. In these circumstances, the SOS for Biz picks up the protective award.

The other claim Deloitte have to pay is Wages owed including holiday pay. These are preferential debts.

We are just about to get ours from Deloitte, despite their prevarication. Then we go at them again.

hi vint
after going through paper work for the last couple of days i have come to the conclusion that no we were not given the required information to consult with our colleagues as at consultation meeting .
we were not given any information regards to the status of the company what was happening.
that the consultation was not meaningful nor effective also they are stating that the consultation started on 14/11/2012 but we were not asked to be represenitives till 17/11/2012 and the first meeting wasn't until 20/11/2012.
the only information ref to the comapany affairs we knew was what was written in the news papers as we were kept in the dark throughout the whole of the administration.

[carol01]

Re: administration

The Tribunal hearing started on Monday.

Tribunal hearings are heard by a Judge and two ‘lay members’ who are generally one trade union representative and one HR representative, i.e. one member more focussed on employees and one more focussed on employers. We have a great Judge who is very interested in what happened and very insightful.

We have so far heard evidence from Mr Astbury of Deloitte LLP who did not seem to know a lot about the background to the administration or what happened with consultation and redundancies yet was the witness they chose to put forward. Our barrister very clearly made the point that he simply didn’t know a lot about anything. We then have heard some brilliant evidence from a number of colleagues who was very knowledgeable and cogent. giving evidence this afternoon and we have other witnesses Friday.

[carol01]

Re: administration

yesterday was the closing day for comet case. tribunal is deciding whether we are entitled to our protective award, should know early next week fingers crossed

[cymruambyth]

Re: administration

Fingers crossed for a successful result.

[carol01]

Re: administration

We have received the Comet judgment . It is 94 pages long. Basically it is really good news and Judge Forrest has written a damning judgment. The Judge has made an award of 90 days’ protective award for all employees except those dismissed on or before 17 November who will recieve 70 days. A 90 day award is the absolute maximum that can be made and the Judge has recognised how badly we were all treated.The Judge found that there were no properly elected representatives (and no consultation). thankyou vint and everyone else who has helped me with this case