Look at it objectively: ‘reassuring’ email was not an offer of enhanced redundancy terms
The claimant was employed as company secretary of a company where there had already been redundancies. In October 2010, the claimant was concerned about his position. He and a colleague spoke to their line manager and later on the same day the line manager disclosed part of a confidential email about retention of key staff that had been circulated among senior managers. The email, dated 16 February 2010, included a comment that:
‘Our redundancy package offered to previous people already made redundant will apply to any future redundancies, and this in itself provides a financial incentive for some of the people to stay…’
The claimant took this as a reassurance that if key people were made redundant, they would be entitled to the same redundancy terms as had been on offer in previous cases (four weeks per year of service). When the claimant was made redundant in June 2012, he received three weeks’ pay per year of service and claimed for the difference as a breach of contract…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The decision of the US Court of Appeals has raised questions about how issuers should present their disclosures on conflict minerals under Exchange Act Rule 13p-1 and Form SD.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
Analysis from The Lawyer
As international firms question their future in these small, closely linked markets, local lawyers too are eyeing the business environment with caution
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump