Notice handed in getting nasty

Status
Not open for further replies.

It certainly is the norm here in Switzerland for banks and insurance companies. You are required to send notice by registered post in most cases and once HR get the letter they send someone along to collect you... It is referred to as 'gardening leave' - you are not required to turn up for work, but you are not allowed to start the new job either, hence the gardening reference.
 
Whether contracted to or not three months is a ridiculous length of time to serve out notice for most jobs. So unless this (current) job is of an extremely sensitive nature or the salary is inordinately high there is no use in pussyfooting. Four to six weeks notice is more than enough.

So anybody who is an employer should know well to get on with the job and cease introducing loony time-scales that are of no help to anybody. If somebody wants to leave there is no benefit in forcing him/her to crazily lengthy notice. This is the 21st century.
 
I left the Bank of Ireland to go to a competitor and was asked to leave on the same day as I gave my notice.
 
SBarrett said:
Unless she is in a very high position, 3 months notice is unenforceable.
Click to expand...

Well having gone back and read the legislation, I would say yes it almost certainly is enforceable! The law requires that the notice period must be stated in the contract and what the minimum period must be, but it sets no maximum period.

So as long as the three months was stated in the contract and it was signed by both parties, it is valid. And the employer can required it to be served.
 
Let's say the job is not vital and not a mega-paying one. The only reason an employer would introduce a three month notice period is because he/she can. I can see no other reason outside an employer throwing his/her weight around abusing the current economic climate.

This is like the financial guy I saw on television some time ago telling newly unemployed people with families to support and in heavy negative equity that they were under contract to pay full mortgage repayments before any other outlay.

Like I said earlier this is 2014 not 1814. I don't care what is happening in Switzerland, USA or anywhere else. Continuing to work in a "mundane" job for thirteen weeks after serving notice is like continuing to flog a dead prisoner.
 
Leper said:
Like I said earlier this is 2014 not 1814. I don't care what is happening in Switzerland, USA or anywhere else. Continuing to work in a "mundane" job for thirteen weeks after serving notice is like continuing to flog a dead prisoner.
Click to expand...

Well it really does not matter it is 2014 or 1814, a legally binding contract is still a legally binding contract. No society could operate on the basis that people can walk from their obligations when it does not suit them. Or do you think it would also be OK for the employer to give the employee 5 weeks notice as well, rather than the period agreed in the contract??
 
Jim2007 said:
Well it really does not matter it is 2014 or 1814, a legally binding contract is still a legally binding contract.
Click to expand...

It's not as straightforward as that: not all terms in an employment contract are enforceable, as there is legislation that may take precedence.

People: I think some of you are being a little harsh on the OP, who came looking for some information and advice. There's a certain strain that is sometimes evident on this site by some commentators to the affect of "you signed it: tough on you, don't expect any sympathy, much less help".

As I said, all the OP was looking for was to know was the term enforceable, and advice on what to do.

As for the original query, some years ago I worked in a company that had a three month notice period. The reason it was there was that it was a small company that could be badly impacted if they couldn't plan the transition of people from projects with client companies. When I did leave, it was towards the end of a project, and I agreed amicably to leave when it finished (which I think was three or four weeks from the time of notice).

So, to those who say it's completely unreasonable to have such a long notice period, I'd say that there can be very good reasons for it, especially in small companies. To those who say you just have to stick with it, I'd say there's no harm in asking for a shorter period, and trying to negotiate a shorter term, which could well be acceptable or even advantageous to the employer. To the OP, I think it's possibly too late for such an amicable agreement, and you probably just have to stick with it, though I would make the effort in trying to reach agreement (for example, ask why it is needed, and see is there any scope for meeting their needs that doesn't involve the full period).
 


Hi ang

I think you are being unfair to us "People"
She put in for 5 weeks. initially they were shocked with offers of more, but now they have become nasty.
Click to expand...

The OP is clearly expecting to get the Joe Duffy reaction. "How dare the evil employer interfere with my fiancé's wishes!"

In general on Askaboutmoney, we don't promote illegality e.g pirating of software. Rather than explain how to do it, we allow posts which say it should not be done.

There is no comparison between this situation and someone who can't afford to pay their mortgage.

This person has a contract which they signed. They could have sought to have the notice reduced at the time as part of the negotiations. They should honour their contract, but as you say, they should also have friendly discussions to see if a shorter time suited both parties.

He has not answered my question. Did she accept the job without informing her new employer about the notice period?

Jim2007:

Or do you think it would also be OK for the employer to give the employee 5 weeks notice as well, rather than the period agreed in the contract??
Click to expand...

Excellent point.
 
Any contract clause is technically enforceable but it is extremely unlikely that any company would try and enforce it. Why bother? It is also questionable if a Court would uphold the clause for the majority of roles unless there is very good reason. I think there is UK case law on this. Court's are reluctant to enforce anything that could be considered restraint of trade. Unless you are a senior executive with potential to damage the company when you leave, I don't see why any company would put in a three month clause.

I also don't see what the company would gain? They would either have a very unhappy employee in the office for three months or they would have to pay her to sit t home for three months. It's all very well talking about enforcing contracts but sometimes you need to step back and see the wood from the trees and take the emotion out of it.

I don't see the problem with you giving 5 weeks notice. Obviously you need to consider that you will be leaving your employer on bad terms which is never ideal but I wouldn't pass up the opportunity of a new job because of it.
 
Contact clauses like this are not legal as they infringe on a persons free movement of employment. Below management level it is not easy to get a new employer to accept a 3 month wait.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
The OP is clearly expecting to get the Joe Duffy reaction. "How dare the evil employer interfere with my fiancé's wishes!"
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're just emphasising my point about the tone of some responses: you're using emotive language (e.g. "evil employer") to describe what you perceive someone to be saying. How exactly do you get they were "clearly expecting" this from the original post?

I didn't advise them to do anything illegal (nor would I): all I suggested they do was to try and negotiate a shorter notice period (any contract can be updated by mutual agreement), though given the apparent breakdown in relations, this may well be too late. The OP seems to have accepted this: "Time to just suck it up and hope the new place will wait", which I'd take to mean that they won't be appearing on Joe Duffy any time soon.

Although the employer would on the face of it hold all the cards in such a negotiation, in practice as others have pointed out they would be unlikely either to pursue the matter further, or if push came to shove they may well find it unenforceable.

One final point I'd make: it is never a good idea to leave an employer on bad terms, particularly in a country this size. Yet another reason for trying the negotiation route in preference to reaching for the lawyers.
 

Just read the original post

She put in for 5 weeks. initially they were shocked with offers of more, but now they have become nasty.
Click to expand...

The employer is becoming "nasty"? That is an emotive word, which I am just reflecting. The employer is just insisting that the employee should stick to their side of the contract. There really is nothing nasty about this.
 
ang1170 said:
It's not as straightforward as that: not all terms in an employment contract are enforceable, as there is legislation that may take precedence.
Click to expand...

Well if you took the trouble like I just did to review the two acts involved you'd know that it is enforceable!

ang1170 said:
As I said, all the OP was looking for was to know was the term enforceable, and advice on what to do.
Click to expand...
Read the post again - the OP already knows the answer!
 
I think you are taking that out of context. Taking all the OP comments, they have implied there were things other than simply working the notice period that were unpleasant.
 
TommyB said:
Contact clauses like this are not legal as they infringe on a persons free movement of employment. Below management level it is not easy to get a new employer to accept a 3 month wait.
Click to expand...

Of course they are legal! Go read the Terms of Employment Act and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act.

Do not confuse this with a restrictive practices clause, which is a very different thing.
 
Whilst they may be legal, I doubt many employers would bother to go legal to enforce.
 
Time said:
Whilst they may be legal, I doubt many employers would bother to go legal to enforce.
Click to expand...

Unlikely but theycould do.

Still suggest , mend any fences with MD of present company .
He may well accept fiance acted without realizing the importance of the 3 month clause.
Leave on agreed/good terms if possible.
 
This is where I have a problem.

Do we recommend littering on the grounds that one is unlikely to be prosecuted?

We don't because littering is wrong.

Some posters seem to be suggesting that she should break her contract, because there is little that the employer can do about it.

I think that she should honour her contract, because it's a reciprocal contract and it's the right thing to do, whether she gets pursued or not.

Brendan
 
................................

I can read that some posters are going down the road of break the contract .
That is unfair to employer.
However 3 month notice seems to be a bit harsh for most jobs and would in an average job slow mobility of labour.
Like most things, an open conversation even at this stage with employer may resolve things amicably.
People need to understand that Employment Contracts are a two way safeguard, not a stick to beat either side up with.
Like all Contracts they can be reviewed.
 

Brendan, I don't think anyone is suggesting that they simply tell the employer to take a jump and walk out. But at the same time, it is unreasonable to ask any potential employer to wait three months to fill a role for the majority of jobs. Both sides should be able to have a resonable conversation about this.

Of course, people should honour contracts but employers change contracts every day to face economic reality. How many employees have been told that they will have to have pay cuts, lose their pension entitlements or change their working conditions under the threat of losing their jobs if they refuse to the change. Look at Baush & Lomb. They are not facing bankruptcy. They just want to reduce the cost base and are trying to change their employees contracts under threat. I don't remember too many people on AAM talking about how a profitable company like them should abide by the contract. And yet if an employee tries to leave to take up a better offer and have to threaten the employer, they are somehow immoral.

If I got a better economic offer from another employer, I would try my hardest to leave my current employer on good terms and come to an arrangement with them but I wouldn't let them cause me to lose the potential job. Especially over something like a 3 month notice clause. It's a ridiculous clause for the vast vast majority of roles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register