Job said not to work 1 weeks notice

[dodo]

If a person working 10 weeks in a job and then gave 1 weeks notice to their employer. Then employer couple of days later say don't bother working your 1 weeks notice as if you don't want to work here then just leave now. Which the person did as told.
Is the person entitled to be paid for the weeks notice they were willing to work?
Tks

 

[Baby boomer]

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yes, it is very likely that a minimum notice period of 1 week is specified in the contract of employment and the employer is bound by it. Even if it isn't, the employer appears to have accepted the weeks notice and again would be bound by it.

 

[Peanuts20]

Yes, it's called PILON, Pay in lieu of notice

 

[Leo]

In terms of the languange used, it sounds like the employer offered a choice as to whether to work out a notice period. Unless they said the person would be paid in-lieu, they do not have to pay for a no-show. Note that you have to be in emplyment for 13 weeks before you become entitled to a minimun notice period, though emeplyment contracts can offer terms in excess of the minimums.

The person may feel like they were willing to work, but a reasonable employer would not say the above unless the staff member was showing no interest in actually working.

 

[AlbacoreA]

The person may feel like they were willing to work, but a reasonable employer would not say the above unless the staff member was showing no interest in actually working.

There can be many valid business reasons to ask a person not to work their notice. It may even be policy.

If someone is leaving it might be because the employer is unreasonable. But this is speculation and not what dodo asked.

 

[Leo]

There can be many valid business reasons to ask a person not to work their notice. It may even be policy.

Very true, always two sides to each story and then some truth somewhere in between. Gardening leave is less common than it used to be, there would be no question that payment would be expected where an employer makes such a request. The OP didn't suggest they were asked not to work though, so I doubt it applies here.

 

[Allpartied]

The worker can try and pursue the employer. Take them to the WRC, but, in my experience, they are wasting their time.

Enforcement of employment legislation is non-existent. Unless the worker is a trade union member, I would just leave it and move on.

 

[Leo]

Take them to the WRC, but, in my experience, they are wasting their time.

The WRC find in the employee's favour in ~40% of cases, with awards that sometimes run into the hundreds of thousands. Many employers settle strong cases brought to the WRC rather than risk the negative publicity of a ruling against them.

Enforcement of employment legislation is non-existent.

What legislation are you referring to that is of relevance here?

 

[Baby boomer]

Very true, always two sides to each story and then some truth somewhere in between.

Yes, that is often the case.

The OP didn't suggest they were asked not to work though, so I doubt it applies here.

Huh? According to the OP, the employer said:

"...don't bother working your 1 weeks notice..."

and

"...if you don't want to work here then just leave now."

That sounds like an instruction not to work out the notice period, not an offer to.choose to do so!

 

[Allpartied]

The WRC find in the employee's favour in ~40% of cases, with awards that sometimes run into the hundreds of thousands. Many employers settle strong cases brought to the WRC rather than risk the negative publicity of a ruling against them.



What legislation are you referring to that is of relevance here?

Minimum Notice

www.workplacerelations.ie

This legislation refers to a minimum period of employment of 13 weeks. So, maybe not applicable in this case

As for the WRC , most of the successful cases are pursued by trade unions, who have the time and resources to trawl through the process.

 

[Leo]

That sounds like an instruction not to work out the notice period, not an offer to.choose to do so!

The use of 'if' is an explicit choice. 'If you don't want to' is how you offer a choice, not an ultimatum.

 

[Leo]

This legislation refers to a minimum period of employment of 13 weeks. So, maybe not applicable in this case

As stated in post #4 above.

 

[Leo]

As for the WRC , most of the successful cases are pursued by trade unions, who have the time and resources to trawl through the process.

You have a link for that? They say most complainants self-represent but I haven't seen anywhere where they breakdown success rate on that criteria. The process isn't that complex.

 

[Allpartied]

You have a link for that? The process isn't that complex.

I'm going on my own experience. Where a complaint was issued 8 months ago. It was acknowledged, a phone call was made and since then, nothing.
Big employers might have some reputational reasons to respond to complaints through the WRC, but SME's just ignore them.
As the employer, himself, told me, " you can go that route, but it won't make any difference". So far, he seems to be right.

 

[AlbacoreA]

The use of 'if' is an explicit choice. 'If you don't want to' is how you offer a choice, not an ultimatum.

The if refers to leaving not working the notice. That's my interpretation.

 

[Leo]

I'm going on my own experience. Where a complaint was issued 8 months ago. It was acknowledged, a phone call was made and since then, nothing.

Fair enough, you had a bad experience, but I don't think you can extrapolate that to be representative of every case and assume that union representation is of great importance.

We're going off-topic here, so perhaps best leave this topic here. Start a new thread if you want to discuss further, perhaps others here have experience also.

 

[Leo]

The if refers to leaving not working the notice. That's my interpretation.

Yeah, but the employer is not legally obliged to pay if they choose not to work out the notice.

 

[AlbacoreA]

Yeah, but the employer is not legally obliged to pay if they choose not to work out the notice.

The OP should clarify. It might have been ambiguous on purpose.

 

[Baby boomer]

I'm going on my own experience. Where a complaint was issued 8 months ago. It was acknowledged, a phone call was made and since then, nothing.
Big employers might have some reputational reasons to respond to complaints through the WRC, but SME's just ignore them.
As the employer, himself, told me, " you can go that route, but it won't make any difference". So far, he seems to be right.

The WRC has not distinguished itself during the pandemic and was very slow to the whole remote hearing party. It was also upended by the Zalewski decision in the Supreme Court which set aside some of its procedures and practices. The upshot is that months went by with no hearings whatsoever and there's now a massive delay of over 12 months for cases to get on.
However, once you do get on, you will have your day in court and a WRC finding is ( with very limited exceptions) binding in law and can't just be ignored.

 

[Purple]

Big employers might have some reputational reasons to respond to complaints through the WRC, but SME's just ignore them.

That's nonsense. The WRC process is very straightforward. If there is any sort of a case they will find in favour of the employee. The awards are usually much smaller than the employee expects.

SME's often don't have the resources to defend themselves, or to have a watertight HR system, so they usually end up on the wrong side of the process.

Thankfully most employees know that Unions kill small businesses so they avoid joining them.