Given notice after one month

Cardamom

Hi guys, I hope this post is in the right place.

I have a friend (lets call him Mr Y) who was employed part-time evenings working a couple of days a week on minimum wage. He is 19. This week he was told that the company are getting no benefit from employing part-time evening staff a few days a week and will give him one months notice.

As you can understand Mr Y is quite angry and upset. The particular job has been running with this company for years, so he feels he has been messed about by being given this job to then be told that the job will no longer exist in a few weeks.

Mr Y did not sign a contract with the company, as they never actually produced his contract. He would like to know if he can hand in his resignation to stop working at that company with immediate effect, and if he does this would that then give the company the right to withhold his wages for the last month. Or would Mr Y have to work the 4 weeks notice.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, I hope someone can offer some advice.

Cardamom

fengirl_2

In the absence of written terms of employment, the statutory provisions apply which means he has only to give a weeks notice.
The employer has gone beyond their statutory duty by giving him a months notice. If he resigns, he will not be entitled to JSA and if he just walks, he has little chance of geting a reference.

Horace

How long has your friend worked there? It matters not that he never signed a contract because by working there he has already agreed to their terms of employment especially if he has worked there for some time. The company has given him a month's notice and it would be better for him if he continued working until the end of his notice period and then went and signed on because if he quit before then, then the jobcentre will have deemed him as making himself unemployed and will delay in paying him anything at all.

In the meantime, he should make attempts to find alternative work.

LittleVoice

Horace wrote: »

It matters not that he never signed a contract because by working there he has already agreed to their terms of employment especially if he has worked there for some time.

Though it is true that even without written particulars of employment he will have a contract of employment it does not follow that he has agreed to their terms of employment. As fengirl says, in the absence of longer notice being given in written particulars, the statutory notice period is one week from the employee. (It doesn't increase with length of employment.)

However note that the written particulars of employment do not have to be signed - to apply they just need to have been supplied.

Cardamom

Hi guys, firstly thank you ever so much for your replys.

He has worked at this place for approx 6 weeks. He wants to give his notice to the employer, but is worried that they will withhold the payment he is due from them for the time he has worked since he started. He says he has been paid for approx 2 weeks so far.

The company have a policy whereby they don't give references, so he's got no fear of losing that.

Cardamom

LittleVoice

Cardamom wrote: »

Hi guys, firstly thank you ever so much for your replys.

He has worked at this place for approx 6 weeks. He wants to give his notice to the employer, but is worried that they will withhold the payment he is due from them for the time he has worked since he started. He says he has been paid for approx 2 weeks so far.

The company have a policy whereby they don't give references, so he's got no fear of losing that.

Cardamom

They actually sound as though they are reasonable employers (even if he does not like what has happened). They have given him more notice than that to which he is entitled by statute. The legal requirement to provide written particulars of employment is within two months of the start so they are within time for that.

Perhaps their admin is not too great. He needs to ask them so that he can check on when he will be paid for the various weeks of work. Though if he really has not been given written details about notice periods he could just give one week's notice, is it really not worth working for an additional 3 weeks at most?

Cardamom

Hello LV,

He (and the others that have been laid off) feel that the company have given them four weeks notice for their own benefit in order to give them time to find their replacements in the form of the full time employee(s) and not as a kind gesture towards those that have lost their jobs.

He has decided to hand in his one week notice after reading the advice on here, and also after considering his other options.

Once again, thank you all for your replies.

Cardamom

alunharford

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but assuming it was a permanent position, the employer would seem to have breached the contract (the terms substantially changed when they gave notice). As such, I don't see that he would need to give them any notice.
That said, I don't know enough of the details to be sure, and I'll stress again that I'm not a lawyer.

LittleVoice

alunharford wrote: »

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but assuming it was a permanent position, the employer would seem to have breached the contract (the terms substantially changed when they gave notice). As such, I don't see that he would need to give them any notice.
That said, I don't know enough of the details to be sure, and I'll stress again that I'm not a lawyer.

The OP's friend is being dismissed from a part-time post. The fact that there may be full-time work available has no bearing on this. The employer has not breached the contract.