Notice handed in getting nasty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan Burgess said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's where we part company, the attitude that says: "you signed a contract, live with the consequences, no matter what".

The contract may well have been signed at a time when the employee was vulnerable (e.g. unemployed and desperate for a job), and they may never have liked the particular contract term.

I am NOT saying they should simply break the contract. I said they should try and renegotiate the notice period, hopefully on amicable terms. They can use any doubt about its enforceability, either in legal or practical terms, as an (unstated) bargaining position.
 
What would a company achieve by forcing a disgruntled employee who does not want to be there to work? It would do the company more harm than good. The potential for the employee to misbehave is there.
 
I presume if Bausch and Lomb do close down in Ireland, they will pay their employees their salaries up to the date of leaving. They will also pay them statutory entitlements. I don't think that they will break their contracts, but they might renegotiate them.

Likewise the OP, could at any time, have applied for a salary increase, a change in hours, or even a reduction in the notice period. She and her employer would have been free to negotiate that change.

I am shocked by this

but I wouldn't let them cause me to lose the potential job.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the employer by "they". They are not causing her to lose the potential job. The terms of the contract should have precluded her from accepting a job without discussing the notice period.
 
Sunny said:
...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.
Click to expand...

Another thing to be wary of here, Ireland is a small market, news travels. If the new employers found out she breached the terms of her previous employment, they may decide not to keep her on.
 

Sorry Brendan but you are missing the point. They are telling employees that they will close the plant unless they agree to 20% pay cuts and jobs losses. Is that what you call negotiating? What legal recourse do the employees have in this case?

So you don't see what's wrong with the idea of a profitable company under no threat of bankruptcy telling their employees they will lose their jobs if they don't change the terms of their contracts while an employee can't tell their employer that they will work 5 weeks notice instead of the 12 weeks notice as per their contract on their contract or else they will simply walk. And even if this happens, the employer is perfectly entitled to try and legally enforce the contract if they so wish. If the OP walked in and annouced they were walking out tomorrow, I might have some sympathy but they have tried to negotiate by offering to work 5 weeks which is fair.

Brendan Burgess said:
I am shocked by this



Do you mean the employer by "they". They are not causing her to lose the potential job. The terms of the contract should have precluded her from accepting a job without discussing the notice period.
Click to expand...

You might to join us in the real world Brendan. Maybe at the level of jobs you go for might be different but for the vast majority of us, going into an interview process and telling a company that there is a 3 month notice period is not realisitic. There is a reason why companies ask what the notice period is at the start of the interviewing process. And unless the role is very senior and specialised, no company will wait three months when the next in line can start in 4 weeks. So in your world, the only option the employee would have is to resign her job and try and find a new job in the next three months. Or else she stays in a job that she might be completely miserable in.
 
Leo said:
Another thing to be wary of here, Ireland is a small market, news travels. If the new employers found out she breached the terms of her previous employment, they may decide not to keep her on.
Click to expand...

I already said people should always try and leave on good terms with their employers but that's not always possible for different reasons. You need to decide and do what is best for you and deal with the consequences. Employers and Employees break contracts all the time. That is why we have employment tribunals, labour courts etc.

I am simply saying that I might have signed a contract with an employer but that doesn't mean they own me. I will always try and be fair to them if I wanted to leave but I expect to be treated fairly in return. I didn't take it personally when my last company cut my pay by 15% and I was told to take it or leave it. I also don't expect my employer to take it personally when I tell that I cutting my notice period by 50% so I can take a new job and they can take it or leave it. That's simply reality. They are welcome to take me on legally if they want. I suppose I could have legally enforced my contract as well and not taken the 15% cut but what's the point?
 
I'm with Sunny on this issue. Very few employees take any note of the notice clause in an employment contract! Funnily enough I did on my last contract and mutually agreed to change the period from 1 month back to 3 (incidently the employer had never enforced the 3 month rule and as such never had a need to change it). I have been around the block a few times in differing employments and generally 1 month notice is the norm (if there are exceptions, there should be a logical reason for them). If it were me, would I risk losing a better job for the sake of fulfilling a 3 month notice period? I don't think so!
I would not take the "black & white" (contract is a contract) approach on this issue and while obviously would try to be as flexible as possible in leaving an employment where I was treated well in the lurch, would ultimately take the option of leaving early if this became necessary.
 

I believe in the free market.

If my salary is €40,000 and I think I am worth more, then I will ask my employer for more. If he says no, I will get a job elsewhere on the higher salary.

Bausch and Lomb are not breaking any contracts, as far as I can see. They are terminating employment contracts because they can rationalise the production. And they are dead right to do so.

If they and the employees agree to vary the contracts, then that would be great. But B&L will not unilaterally break the contract as many posters in this thread have suggested that the Fiancé should do.

If the OP walked in and annouced they were walking out tomorrow, I might have some sympathy but they have tried to negotiate by offering to work 5 weeks which is fair.
Click to expand...

The OP has the right to terminate the contract by giving 3 months' notice. They are perfectly entitled to ask to be allowed to leave early.


You might to join us in the real world Brendan. Maybe at the level of jobs you go for
Click to expand...

When anyone at any level asks my advice, I suggest reading the contract and asking for any unacceptable conditions to be changed. That is my world, realistic or not.




The option she had at the start was to refuse to sign a contract with a 3 month notice period in it.

After that, she should morally and legally honour her contract.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
After that, she should morally and legally honour her contract.
Click to expand...

The same way B&L are morally and legally obliged to pay the salaries in their employees contracts, rather than impose a 20% reduction?

I'm afraid there's a lack of consistency in your position
 
ang1170 said:
The same way B&L are morally and legally obliged to pay the salaries in their employees contracts, rather than impose a 20% reduction?

I'm afraid there's a lack of consistency in your position
Click to expand...

They are not imposing a reduction, although I can see how it might seem like this.

They are terminating the contracts as they are fully entitled to do. Or offering their employees the option of accepting reduced salary as an alternative to closing.

The OP is terminating her contract and is fully entitled to do so. She is not obliged to stay with her employer beyond the three months, but she is obliged to stay with them for three months.
 
Let's look at it another way.

Let's say she gave 3 months' notice as she planned to travel around the World from early September. And the employer then told her to leave at the end of June and paid her until the end of June.

Would you all be happy to say that the employer was fully entitled to break the contract as why should they be obliged to keep her for 3 months?

I think that the employer would be legally wrong. And I am quite sure that the courts would award her the full salary for the two months.

Contracts are mutual and should be respected by both sides.
 
Sorry Brendan but are verging into the ridiculous if you don't see the double standards in supporting a companies right in going to their employees and saying that you either take a 20% pay cut or we move production to another country as not unilaterally breaking a contract but a employee going to their employer and saying I either cut my notice period by 50% or else walk out in five weeks anyway as somehow acting immorally.
 
Let's say she gave 3 months' notice as she planned to travel around the World from early September. And the employer then told her to leave at the end of June and paid her until the end of June.
Click to expand...
In all fairness, this really makes no sense as an arguement for anything!!!
 

They're not breaking a contract - they're using a part of the contract (redundancy) to end the contract. There's nothing wrong with doing that, it's the same as when an employee uses part of the contract to end it.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
They are not imposing a reduction, although I can see how it might seem like this.
Click to expand...

That's more than a little disingenuous. It's "negotiating" new contract terms of a reduced salary, under a severe threat.

How is that different from an employee negotiating new contract terms (i.e. shorter notice period)?
 
44brendan said:
In all fairness, this really makes no sense as an arguement for anything!!!
Click to expand...

It's the exact same as she is doing.

She has the right to terminate her contract by giving 3 months' notice.

But it doesn't suit her, so she is giving 5 weeks' notice.

The problem here is that people have a natural sympathy for the employee in a situation like this. And it's blinding you to her legal and moral obligations.

You have a standard for the employer - that they must adhere to their contract. You would be appalled if they gave her one months' notice. But you have a different standard for the employee - she should just walk out when it suits her, irrespective of her contract.

I see a contract as being two way. Both sides should honour it. Or negotiate an alternative.
 
As I read the OP, she wants to use up her holiday entitlement of 5 weeks during the notice period - ie work for 8 weeks and then fill the remainder of the 3 month period with holiday leave.

No-one has answered this question and I fear the OP has been scared away by the level of feeling apparent.
 

You seem blind to your own lack of consistency. It's apparently OK for an employer to attempt to change a contract (the wage reduction example), but not OK for an employee to attempt to change the same contract (the shorter notice period example).

You keep claiming that anyone arguing against you is saying it's OK to break the contract. This is not the case: I said so explicitly. What I did say was that they should attempt to re-negotiate the contract.

In any such negotiation the employer, if they have any degree of common sense, will realise that it is for all practical purposes unenforceable, whether they like it or not. The employee doesn't even have to mention this: it is a fact of life, whether you or I or anyone likes it or not.

This is exactly the same way as an employer who uses direct or implied threats when they're doing the negotiations. We're all big boys and girls.

So, it is not true to say "a contract is a contract and must be observed in all cases": a contract is simply a legal agreement that is signed at some point in time, it is open to re-negotiation by the parties to a mutually agreeable position at any time. Saying "you must stick to the contract, no matter what" and be abused for asking is there another course available is neither true nor helpful.

By the way: I'm with Mrs. Vimes: the OP seems to long since have fled, and I can well sympathise with them.
 
ang1170 said:
You seem blind to your own lack of consistency. It's apparently OK for an employer to attempt to change a contract (the wage reduction example), but not OK for an employee to attempt to change the same contract (the shorter notice period example).
Click to expand...

The employer in this case is stating that the positions will be redundant unless there are changes in the T&Cs. The employees have a choice - be made redundant or accept new T&Cs. An employee can always seek to change their contract - their employer will then have a choice; accept or reject. Likely the latter in the majority of cases - but maybe not when an employee is leaving anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register