Changes to terms and conditions, pay and redundancy package

I work for a small charity and we have had our funding cut. Two years ago we (as 5 separate organisaions) merged and were TUPE'd over. Staff had different contracts, salaries, annual leave entitlement and redundancy packages, they did not change them. We have been in a period of consultation which began on 14.05.2011 and now have been given proposed new and terms and conditions. Six of us have enhanced redundancy packages which state one month for every year worked up to a maximum of 6 months. Our organisation has said that they have taken legal advice and they cannot pay us our contractual redundancy as it it indirect age discrimination and therefore will only be paid statutory redundancy. This means that instead of £13000 I would receive £6000 statutory for 10 years service. The new terms and conditions have also changed drastically I will have a £5000pa pay cut, lose 5 days annual leave and go from 6 month full pay, 6 months half pay for sickness I will only be entitled to statutory sick pay. I will in effect be getting the same salary I was receiving when I began working for the organisation in 2001. They gave us the redundancy statement on 14.05.2011 but they had used the statement to make two other workers redundant in March but we were not informed of this. Can this be construed as breach of contract as they changed the redundancy terms without our knowledge in March and we were not informed until mid April? Sorry this is so long but I wanted to give as much info as poss. Thanks

No - I am afraid that they are correct and the redundancy package they inherited is unlawful in that it is indirect age discrimination. Annoyingly (for you) had the package been one "year" shorter - it wouldn't have been. The maximum number of years for which a service related enhancement can be justified (assuming it can be justified at all - but that is a different story) is five years, and if your package had been one year shorter then it may have scraped through. But this is a frustration of contract and therefore not actionable - they may not adhere to it because it would be an unlawful act to do so. And their lawyer is damned good to have spotted that because a lot wouldn't have - no consolation I suppose! Sorry.