end of consultation but no decision relayed. Length of time unreasonable??

Hi there

Initially advised role not affected by redundancy proposals affecting more than 90 employees. Then called to urgent meeting and put at at risk. Letter showing basis of calculations was not correct and a correct version has never been provided.
Told no match. Had 3 individual at risk meetings, asked if I would acquiesce. Agreed but no communcation from employer about whether this was accepted or not. Was off sick for 4 months and received no communication, consultation or information about vacancies. Letter received confirming consultation ended 3 months ago, but no decision issued. Have been advised informally that there are no redundancies but formally still "at risk". No clear timescales and have been at risk for 9 months
Would like some advice as to
1)whether employer should write to confirm decision about acquiescence, and position following end of consultation
2) should employer continue to consult, commuicate etc whilst person off sick with disability related issue
3) how long can an employee be kept "at risk"?
4) Can I be "at risk" if there are no redundancies?
5) Is there a point at which the length of time taken can be considered unreasonable particulalry in terms of stress levels?


Thanks in advance for any help or advice.

I have no idea what "acquiese" means - it has no legal meaning. What did you agree to? But theoretically jobs can remain at risk even if no redundancies have taken place, and in effect, if this happens, the "consultation period" continues to run until a decision is made. If redundancies were to then be decided upon then yes, the employer would still need to consdier possible suitable alternative employment etc. But consultation is a two way process, and so you are as much responsible for communicating with them as they are with you. Where an employee is off sick, from an employers perspective it is often "devil if you do and devil if you don't" - half the employees complain that they are contacting them and half complain that they aren't. Why don't you contact the employer and ask for clarification of the position?

Thanks so much for the speedy response.
Acquiescing means accepting voluntary redundancy.

Tried emailing them but they don't respond!! Bizarre.

SarEl, I'm not sure where you went to law school -

Acquiescence

Acquiescence is a legal term or doctrine that describes the situation in which a person knowingly stands by an infringement of their rights without raising an objection, allowing the other person to continue or proceed to act, under the impression that those rights will not be asserted, or that those rights belong to the infringed person. The legal consequence of acquiescence is that the person whose rights were infringed, but who did not object cannot then make a claim against the person who infringed said rights, nor succeed in an injunction to stop further infringement of the rights. Thus, that person is said to have tacitly accepted or agreed to the infringement of their rights.

The doctrine of acquiescence is not generally expressed in statute. It is a common-law principle that is found in the decisions of the courts on various matters.

The two main doctrines of acquiescence are estoppel by acquiescence, and acquiescence by silence. The common-law doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence is similar to estoppel by laches. It applies where one person gives legal notice of a fact or claim to another person, and that person fails to challenge that claim within a reasonable time. The second party is said to have acquiesced to the claim, and is estopped from later challenging it.

Acquiescence by silence occurs in the context of claims in tort, whereby a person’s silence, or failure to protest or take any action, in the face of a tortious act, has the consequence that they lose their rights to claim for any loss or damage.

I understand perfectly well what acquiesce means in law thank you - which I doubt the OP does, or cares about. In the context of the OP the word had no legal meaning - she did not say what she had agreed to. I am assuming that the sole pupose of your post is to be insulting, since it offers nothing other than having a go at me. And to answer your question - it was Oxford. Whereas you went to law school at Acquiescence: Law & Acquiescence Solicitors / Lawyers in UK / London - because this post "of yours" is a direct plagiarism from the site, word for word. To save you having to look up the word - it means copying something. You are clearly a troll - I doubt you will last long on this site.

More of a wondering than having a go at you.....unlike your reply. No great loss re not lasting long on the site as I only joined to make comment on your post. You have proved what I have suspected for a long time (as I'm in HR and not a lawyer), that law experts who attended Oxford are full of their own self importance!!

And it would appear that "HR experts" know nothing about the law and have to copy the entire text from something they have googled. Which confirms what everyone has suspected about a lot of "HR experts" - they know nothing at all about the law. I would suggest that instead of spending your time attempting to pick irrelevant holes, you go back to school and maybe, one day, you will become a real HR expert who knows what they are talking about - like some of the people on this site - instead of someone who has to copy what somebody else wrote.