# Employer getting stroppy because I am giving 1 month's notice, although the contract says 2 months!



## Thedarkpete (5 May 2017)

Hi all,
I'm looking for some advise, I recently informed my employer that I would only be able to give 4 weeks notice as per the 2 months stated in my contract. (Yep I know breaching my contract) I'm in the job 1 year and 9 months.
Then what followed was what felt like several threats to get me to change my resignation letter to 2 months instead of the one I stated. I was informed how unprofessional this was. Than told that the company legally don't have to say I worked there. They would not be giving me a reference, if I ever applied to company again this would be seen as gross misconduct. After I continually stated I would not be changing my resignation letter to state 2 months notice as they asked me to do. They finally stated that my P45 would not be released until my actual contract length(2 months) was served. I'm wondering if anyone can offer me some advise about the whole situation.
Many thanks,
Peter


----------



## thedaddyman (6 May 2017)

Firstly if that is their attitude then you are better off out of there. Would you ever really apply to work for them again?

They could be slow in releasing your p45, that may have an impact if you are signing on or for sorting your tax with a new employer. To me, the bigger issue is the lack of a reference, they have no obligation to give you one anyway but will it impact on you if you look for another role?


----------



## Leo (8 May 2017)

So you entered an agreement to serve a two month notice period, and now you want out of that because it doesn't suit you. If it was the other way round, I'm sure you'd feel hard done by if they wanted to get out of a contractual obligation to you because it didn't suit them.

They are entitled to stick to the 2 month period, and not release your P45 until that expires. 

They are under no obligation to provide you with a reference, and I doubt any company would be expected to take someone back who breached the terms of their contract. Does your new employer require a reference from them prior to you taking up the new role? If so you have been foolish in taking this course of action.

Another thing to consider, and how likely this is to arise I can't say, but your new employer may contact your previous employer as part of background vetting after you start, if they disclose that you breached the terms of your contract, your new employer may choose to terminate your employment during the probation period. A lot will depend on the industry and the role in question, but many employers don't look favourably on someone who has such a history.

Further details on your rights on the Citizen's Information site here.


----------



## Jim2007 (8 May 2017)

Leo said:


> Does your new employer require a reference from them prior to you taking up the new role? If so you have been foolish in taking this course of action.



Actually if they wanted to be very vindictive they could in fact take a case against him and name the new employer as a respondent.  It would not get anywhere and would be thrown out, but it would certain leave a bad taste if the new employer's first experience of the OP was that they had to hire a solicitor to defend themselves!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 May 2017)

thedaddyman said:


> Firstly if that is their attitude then you are better off out of there.



Did you type that wrong? 

Did you mean to say "If that is your attitude to a contract you signed, they are better off without you?" 

Contracts work both ways. 

It would be usual in such cases for the employee to give 2 months' notice and then ask if he could go early.  Most employers will try to accommodate the employee.

Brendan


----------



## newtothis (8 May 2017)

I'd strongly recommend to the OP they attempt to recover the situation in some way: regardless of whether a reference is given or not, this country is too small to leave anywhere on bad terms: it's very likely it will come back to you in some negative way in the future if you leave on bad terms. As Brendan said, the normal situation would be to give the full notice, and then try and negotiate leaving early, keeping things on as good terms as possible (e.g. offer to do extra work to help train a replacement in or whatever).

General piece of advice: even if you think the company you're with is a complete disaster and the management incompetent fools and you are tempted to tell them what you think of them as you walk out the door, always, always keep it to yourself, be completely professional and pleasant and leave on good terms. You should try and leave on the best possible terms.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (8 May 2017)

Perhaps look for a compromise?

i.e. Do 6 weeks.

My sympathies lie with your employer here.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (8 May 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> My sympathies lie with your employer here.



+ 1


----------



## odyssey06 (8 May 2017)

Is 2 months notice typical in your sector or level of seniority?
If you're moving to a new position what's your notice there?

Or do you think the two months notice is an unfair attempt by your current employer to make it difficult for employees to find new positions?

That should inform your view as to whether your employer has genuine transition concerns ... but really the most important audience for all this is your next employer.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 May 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> Is 2 months notice typical in your sector or level of seniority?



It doesn't matter what is typical notice. It is what is in the contract he signed. 

Brendan


----------



## Steven Barrett (9 May 2017)

2 months is a long time for any role except for a senior role. I am assuming the OP isn't in a senior role, otherwise they would have accepted the 2 months and had the experience to deal with it in a better way. 

The fact is you accepted the terms of the contract which says 2 months. It works both ways in that they probably had to give you 2 months notice if they wanted to let you go. This is where a bit of diplomacy would have gone a long way. I would approach your manager and apologise for giving just 1 month notice but explain you are really excited about the new role and you should have discussed the possibility to reduce the notice period before handing in your resignation. Is there anything that can be rectify the situation so you don't leave on bad terms? 


Steven 
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## odyssey06 (9 May 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> It doesn't matter what is typical notice. It is what is in the contract he signed.
> Brendan



I would disagree. If the employer imposed an unfair contract then fair play to the OP for showing them it's unenforceable and to get real with their employees.
But always keep an eye on the optics of it to any future employer.

If 2 months is expected for this role as it befits its seniority \ remuneration, you should honour it.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 May 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> If the employer imposed an unfair contract



How could it be an unfair contract?  This was not a standard mortgage contract but an employment contract where the employee was quite at liberty when it was drawn up to negotiate a reduction in the notice.  He didn't do so. 

Brendan


----------



## odyssey06 (9 May 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> How could it be an unfair contract?  This was not a standard mortgage contract but an employment contract where the employee was quite at liberty when it was drawn up to negotiate a reduction in the notice.  He didn't do so.



Just because something is in an employment contract that was signed, it does not make it fair (or legal for that matter).
The OP could argue that he needed the job so signed the contract. He was quite at liberty to remain unemployed...

Also, at a senior position there would be scope for negotiation of contract, for most positions do you really think an employer is going to get into individual contracts???

If the employer took the employee to court to enforce the contract, I would not assume that whatever is in the contract will automatically be enforced.

Nobody has to sign up for a broadband contract, yet we still have an EU Directive on Unfair consumer contract terms.


----------



## thedaddyman (9 May 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Did you type that wrong?
> 
> Did you mean to say "If that is your attitude to a contract you signed, they are better off without you?"
> 
> ...


 Whilst you are correct in saying that a contract works both ways, the current employer is achieving absolutely nothing by insisting the employee stays. Do you really think he is going to be productive in his last month of work. ? Instead the employer will be paying out wages and likely not getting anything in return. The attitude of the company is rather petty. As a manager, if one of my team acted like the OP I'd be incredibly annoyed and cheesed off, but I'd be spending my time in finding the right replacement rather then fighting with the OP over a few weeks


----------



## demoivre (9 May 2017)

thedaddyman said:


> They could be slow in releasing your p45,



Revenue will chase that up for the OP if he has difficulty getting it from his employer.


----------



## Leo (9 May 2017)

thedaddyman said:


> .... the current employer is achieving absolutely nothing by insisting the employee stays.



Most companies with a two month notice period in contracts for non senior staff have it there to give them time to protect their interests, often to allow time for a new salesperson to build up relationships with existing customers and prevent the leaving employee from poaching hard won business.


----------



## Leper (9 May 2017)

There are several opinions here regarding contract in favour of the employee and in favour of the employer.  We don't know what industry or type of employment the OP has.  We don't know whether it's NASA and he holds the key to some astounding discovery that will propel a space-station to Jupiter within ten minutes or if the OP is a Call Centre Jockey who can be replaced at a whim.

If the employment is not of great importance to the employee or the employer then two months notice is a bit much to expect. If it boils down to what the employee signed or what the employer expects regardless of any other facts. If there is any sort of bad feeling between both. Then common sense comes into play i.e. the employee getting out asap and the employer leaving him out asap.  A disgruntled employee is no good to anybody.


----------



## Palerider (9 May 2017)

This was the first post and the O. P. has not replied since Friday which in my view indicates the actual concern of this first time poster.
The post has had 17 responses and opinions expressed covering the issue, may I suggest we await the return of the person seeking advice so we can assess after the poster gives feedback.


----------



## Leper (10 May 2017)

Palerider said:


> This was the first post and the O. P. has not replied since Friday which in my view indicates the actual concern of this first time poster.
> The post has had 17 responses and opinions expressed covering the issue, may I suggest we await the return of the person seeking advice so we can assess after the poster gives feedback.



Why wait? Darkpete looked for advice.  He is not short of inspiration from contributors here on which is not an uncommon problem.  Drive on! I say . . . . next post please.


----------



## SqueezedMiddle (11 May 2017)

This happened to me a number of years ago.
I needed to start a really great new job with just four weeks notice but my current employers had me on two months notice.
Threats etc followed.
I have my two months notice and called in sick for the next month.


----------



## peteb (11 May 2017)

SqueezedMiddle said:


> This happened to me a number of years ago.
> I needed to start a really great new job with just four weeks notice but my current employers had me on two months notice.
> Threats etc followed.
> I have my two months notice and called in sick for the next month.



No offence but were you 15 and it was a summer job??  It goes back to the original point made about references etc.  Your's wouldnt look good.  And you probably breached your contract by working elsewhere when still employed.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (11 May 2017)

The position for a senior executive or client-facing person is clearly different to that of a junior or back-office person.

The advice should be tailored accordingly.


----------



## MrEarl (11 May 2017)

Hello,

For what it's worth I would not be too concerned about what your employer is suggesting:

In the short term, if they are slow issuing your P45 you will just go on emergency tax with your new job.  While frustrating and will impact on cashflow, it will only be short term. If necessary, arrange a short term overdraft or raid the piggybank to get your through a couple of lean months.  I would also give the Revenue a call and ask them whats the situation if your (soon to be ex-) employer is unnecessarily delaying the issue of your tax documents - they might be able to apply some pressure.

 As for the company reference, a lot of large companies do nothing more than issue a letter saying you worked there from X to Y date.  Employment references seem more relevant when provided by an individual, so is there an individual at your former employer's business that might be able to provide you with a good reference if ever required in the future (perhaps by phone or something, rather than on company letterhead) ?

I would make it known to the new employer you are going to work for that your former employer is giving you a very hard time over this - odds are they will be supportive and it might help deal with the reference issue.  Also, don't forget if things go well in your new job, then they will become your primary reference in the future.

Final thing that you might like to tell your outgoing employer ... is that there are lots of websites where people post comments about their experiences working for various parties and if they want to continue to take the current approach, you'll name and shame them publicly - that will do long term damage to their reputation.  Not the ideal way to go, but there comes a time where you have to start fighting back a bit and not just tolerate it while silently counting down your final days.  If things get bad, then there's also the option of going to your doctor and going out on stress leave for a week or two


----------



## T McGibney (11 May 2017)

MrEarl said:


> Final thing that you might like to tell your outgoing employer ... is that there are lots of websites where people post comments about their experiences working for various parties and if they want to continue to take the current approach, you'll name and shame them publicly - that will do long term damage to their reputation.



Good God, what awful advice.


----------



## Seagull (11 May 2017)

T McGibney said:


> Good God, what awful advice.


I'd have to agree. It's a small country, and something like that will get around, especially if you're in a small industry. I would also suggest it reflects far more badly on the individual than the company. "X are big bullies and meanies because they wanted me to hold to the terms of my contract, and give full notice". Most people will give it almost as much attention as they do to clickbait.


----------



## MrEarl (11 May 2017)

T McGibney said:


> Good God, what awful advice.



No it's not, there's a time and a place where you have to start standing up for yourself.

If you go public on something that's true, then there's nothing to worry about - just like whistle blowing (or, eh wait a minute... whats happened to the poor old whistleblowers I hear you say ?  ... so, does that mean people should not speak out against whats wrong in the world, or does it mean we need to do more to ensure we live in a just society where people do the right thing ?)


----------



## Ceist Beag (11 May 2017)

MrEarl you do realise the OP is the one who is in the wrong here don't you? They are the one breaking the terms of the contract. You're now suggesting the OP should also threaten the employer by publicly having a go at them on websites? I don't know how you equate that with being good advice!
As a few posters have stated already we don't know enough here to really comment on this and it looks like the OP won't be responding further so I'm not sure there is any point offering further advice on this thread tbh.


----------



## newtothis (11 May 2017)

MrEarl said:


> As for the company reference, a lot of large companies do nothing more than issue a letter saying you worked there from X to Y date.  Employment references seem more relevant when provided by an individual, so is there an individual at your former employer's business that might be able to provide you with a good reference if ever required in the future (perhaps by phone or something, rather than on company letterhead) ?
> 
> I would make it known to the new employer you are going to work for that your former employer is giving you a very hard time over this - odds are they will be supportive and it might help deal with the reference issue.  Also, don't forget if things go well in your new job, then they will become your primary reference in the future.
> 
> Final thing that you might like to tell your outgoing employer ... is that there are lots of websites where people post comments about their experiences working for various parties and if they want to continue to take the current approach, you'll name and shame them publicly - that will do long term damage to their reputation.  Not the ideal way to go, but there comes a time where you have to start fighting back a bit and not just tolerate it while silently counting down your final days.  If things get bad, then there's also the option of going to your doctor and going out on stress leave for a week or two



I have to say, this is just about the worst advice I have ever read on this site! It is *precisely because* employers generally do no more than issue a reference to confirm you worked there from X to Y date that "informal" references, based on direct contacts (usually by phone), are so important. Although various sectors have grown greatly in recent years, it's still a small country, and your next employer (or the one after that) is highly likely to have some contact into your current employer: especially in an era of LinkedIn it is very easy to see if there is someone you can tap into for an opinion on someone. This is done regardless of the size of the organisation. In my experience, it never, ever pays to leave somewhere on bad terms: even if it doesn't bite you immediately, it is highly likely to come back at you at some stage in the future. As for naming and shaming, it says more about the person making the claim than the company complained about, and most people will read it like that. If you want to find out about how good or bad a company is to work for, use the same informal network employers do: find someone who worked there recently and ask them.


----------



## Leper (11 May 2017)

Mr Earl and Newtothis are reasonably good posters on this site.  And while I agree with nearly everything Mr Earl says, I think it's OTT to threaten a former employer with bad publicity on a site such as this. I would not see a good outcome for somebody doing such.  However, Mr Earl is right inasmuch as every employee is entitled to be persuasive rather than being aggressive. The last thing any employer wants is a lamb.  The more I read this thread the more I think the job being left is not senior management where dynamism is a prerequisite and I reckon the "old" employer is just being difficult for the sake of being difficult, merely because he can.

Some posters pointed out that some employers would hate to see a new employee breaking a previous contract.  Again, there is no proof of this (here, at least) and anybody breaking what probably is a stupid part of  contract would gain kudos merely by breaking out of the deal.  

At my age, I think I've seen the lot, the guy who gets out and tells everybody that his current employ is just for losers (a fate that caused many to return eating the humblest of pie).  The guy who gets out and somehow improves his lot, says nothing, but two fingers to the old firm. The guy who gets out and fails. Etc, etc. People do what they need to do and good luck to them. The lambs do nothing and deserve less.


----------



## newtothis (11 May 2017)

Leper said:


> Mr Earl and Newtothis are reasonably good posters on this site.



For some reason, the phrase "damning with faint praise" came to mind when I read this! 



Leper said:


> At my age, I think I've seen the lot, the guy who gets out and tells everybody that his current employ is just for losers (a fate that caused many to return eating the humblest of pie). The guy who gets out and somehow improves his lot, says nothing, but two fingers to the old firm. The guy who gets out and fails. Etc, etc. People do what they need to do and good luck to them. The lambs do nothing and deserve less.



I too am of an age when I've seen a lot (I can't say "*the* lot" as I continue to be surprised....). I'm not suggesting people act as lambs, just that they don't go out of their way to generate bad feeling: there's a right way and a wrong way to go about trying to get out of a previous commitment. Similarly, giving two fingers as you walk out the door might make you feel good for a time, but it will quite likely come back to haunt you later.

In my experience, employers will assume you'll behave the same way as you did in the past. An example: within the last month a new employee of ours presented us (unasked) with information from their previous employer, potentially of use to us (supplier pricelists, internal process descriptions and the like). They are relatively young and inexperienced and I think done from the best of motives in an effort to help us. However, my immediate reaction was that I didn't want to see it and an immediate assumption by me it was likely we'd suffer the same security breach when they came to leave us. I know this is now well off-topic, but the point is related: employers will generally put themselves in the position of previous employers when looking at how an employee behaves and assume they will be on the receiving end of similar behaviour in the future, regardless of how justified it may have been.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 May 2017)

I don't think anyone is encouraging the OP to get on a rampage across Linked In, Twitter and Facebook bad-mouthing the employer... they'll be the best damn tweets the OP will ever regret!

But it would not seem unreasonable once all business is over with the previous employee and P45 extracted, to leave a carefully worded anonymous comment on a site like Glassdor (et al) to the effect that you should think twice about working here given that they will try to hold you to a long notice period which will cause you difficulty in switching employer. I don't see much risk of blowback there from either employer at that point.


----------



## Setanta12 (11 May 2017)

Having suffered through one or two bad employers - best course of action leaving is to do nothing.  Lick your wounds and move on.  Agitating for revenge even anonymously can only come back to bite.  My current employer has negative comments everywhere - but we're still hiring (and firing)!

Consider it unlucky.


----------



## Redone (11 May 2017)

Can't believe some of the responses here. A minority to be fair.

OP,

There's a very good reason your new employer did not ask your current employer for a reference. It was your current job and convention means they are not contacted.

What happens when you leave your new job? Your next employer could request a reference from the current employer.

That's when karma kicks in.

Still, not convinced the OP is a not a troll post.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 May 2017)

Setanta12 said:


> Having suffered through one or two bad employers - best course of action leaving is to do nothing.  Lick your wounds and move on.  Agitating for revenge even anonymously can only come back to bite.  My current employer has negative comments everywhere - but we're still hiring (and firing)! Consider it unlucky.



Does informing people to watch out for the small print of their contract e.g. notice period, before signing up counts as "agitating for revenge"? 
How can the employer object to that? It's hardly protected data.


----------



## Palerider (11 May 2017)

' Still, not convinced the OP is not a troll post'

+1 Redone... but it trundles along anyway.


----------



## MrEarl (11 May 2017)

Folks,

While we won't agree on everything, all of the time I would just like to make a couple of small points clear or add to what I've said already:

I'm working on the basis that the relationship with the outgoing employer is already gone.  It went as soon as the outgoing employer started acting up ... they could have had a reasonable conversation and agreed some form or compromise on the issue of notice, but elected not to and instead has made threats.  As such, I don't ever see a reference of any quality coming from this source and hence my position in my original post.

There comes a time when we all need to stand up for ourselves, fight fire with fire and while it should not be the first option we go for, we are entitled to defend ourselves and thats the position I felt was required.  Furthermore, lets not forget, each time a bully gets away with picking on someone it only encourages them to do it again to the next victum etc.

Finally, my reference to going public about what the employer was doing to the outgoing employee was not referring to posting all sorts across the internet - but sticking to the facts and using services such as Glassdoor.ie where it is common for employees to post about experiences and also, for potential employees to research a potential new employer.  As I said above, if you tell the truth (in a reasonable manner, in case anyone thought otherwise) then there is nothing to fear.  A prospective new employer will see the situation for what it is if they are reasonable.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (11 May 2017)

This is an extraordinary thread; it really is.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (11 May 2017)

OP lost my sympathy after I read his thread title:

*Employer getting stroppy because I am giving 1 month's notice, although the contract says 2 months!*

The use of the word 'stroppy' and the exclamation mark clinched it for me.

Why did the OP bother signing a contract when he was/is so ready to break it?

I'm all for employee rights but the employer has rights also.


----------



## Leper (12 May 2017)

PaddyBloggit said:


> Why did the OP bother signing a contract when he was/is so ready to break it?
> 
> I'm all for employee rights but the employer has rights also.



I wonder why such a "clause" was put in the contract first day, when the employer probably knew it was going to be broken anyway? I reckon, he put it in just because he could.


----------



## SqueezedMiddle (12 May 2017)

peteb said:


> No offence but were you 15 and it was a summer job??  It goes back to the original point made about references etc.  Your's wouldnt look good.  And you probably breached your contract by working elsewhere when still employed.



I was a manager in a financial services company and 36 I think at the time.
I moved to a better financial services company with better prospects and more money.
Yes my contract did say I couldn't work elsewhere.  I survived though.
The police didn't arrive to take me away.  I had a great time in the new job.  I moved again since to improve my lot again.  The world didn't fall in.
The world is full of people who will warn you of the consequences of anything from driving in the bus lane to what's in a contract for x,y,z.  In practice you look coldly at it and decide what the consequences, like really.  Usually there are none.
Op people are in your situation all the time and can manage it one way or another without the doomsayers consequences.


----------



## Leper (12 May 2017)

I've just had a St-Paul-on-the-road-to-Damascus moment.  Darkpete, how dare you question the right of your employer to inflict only a two month term of notice on you! Can you not think progressively on your decision? You have put unnecessary pressure on your co-workers having to deal with one person less trying to sell time-share apartments in northern Iceland to bingo-winged hotties from Catford. You have spurned two opportunities to become employee of the month. All our cherished employees should aspire to this but not you, do you not know any other employer would look on this like you committed perjury in a murder case.  Furthermore, you could have won the sun holiday for one during October in Tunisia (or perhaps eastern Turkey, depending on sales). You could even have made it to our short list of Acting Team Leader in one of our future sales drives.

Darkpete, you are not a good role model for your soon-to-be former work colleagues and our adorable team leaders.  I bet you want to join a trades union in your new job too. Just how low are you prepared to go? Just remember, when you can afford a decent sun holiday yourself in Spain, Sardinia, Malta, Crete or Cyprus you could have had free-for-one in Tunisia. I bet you'll regret your ways. 

Going forward, I ask you to rescind your decision and work out the 61 days only of your notice and we'll forget all of the foregoing.


----------



## odyssey06 (12 May 2017)

[QUOTE]Why did the OP bother signing a contract when he was/is so ready to break it?I'm all for employee rights but the employer has rights also.[/QUOTE]

If 1 month notice period is sufficient for the role \ responsibilities \ level of seniority, why is an employer abusing their position with unreasonable contracts?
If anyone here thinks that someone going for a junior to med level role has much scope to negotiate their contract they are not living in the real world.
Do you think a HR department is going to be able to manage a situation where there are as many contracts as there are employees?
They'll do that for leadership level roles but for anyone else???


----------



## Leo (12 May 2017)

Leper said:


> The more I read this thread the more I think the job being left is not senior management where dynamism is a prerequisite and I reckon the "old" employer is just being difficult for the sake of being difficult, merely because he can.





Leper said:


> I wonder why such a "clause" was put in the contract first day, when the employer probably knew it was going to be broken anyway? I reckon, he put it in just because he could.



So based on a single post from the OP, you continue to develop your opinion that the employer here is oppressive and somehow revels in the misery of their employees...


----------

