Resigning and contract issues

Uncertain

SarEl wrote: »

You are assuming more or less correctly. If they insist that the notice period is one month, then they can insist that you use it during your notice; but if they refuse permission for this, you will still be stuck in the mess. But it's worth pointing this out. I raher suspect that all things said and done, you will leave and go to the new job no matter what. Most people would. So it's really a case of being aware of the risk.

Obviously you are correct to point out the risk.

However, apart from at very senior levels, does anybody have an idea of how often it actually happens where an employer sues?

Given they would be saving his wages their actual loss would be limited to the EXTRA cost of temporary cover and they would have a duty to mitigate their loss as far as possible.

I imagine the stress this is causing would mean the OP may be unable to avoid taking a weeks self certificated sick leave................;)

withabix

What does the Contract say about the period of notice that your employer has to give YOU?

If it is less than the month that they say that you have to give, then this is illegal anyway.

An employee is not required to give a greater period of notice than the employer.

jiffk

some nice ideas, the notice the talk of notice in the contract section is written as applying to both parties so its basically idenitcal each way.

I hink there loss would be minimal as there are several other people in the company who regularly do some of what i do when im too busy with other customers and one of them has already asked for my position when i leave.

getmore4less

What was in the job offer letter(s). it is usual to get the basic terms in that.

Another angle

Did the company accept that you TUPE into the new one.

If not then this contract would be invald for the new company and they should have made you redundant when the old one closed down.

if they insist you are on this old contract then they are giving ALL other employees evidence that they should have been TUPE so full service would apply for any future redundancies.

I think if this was me based on the little info you hae gien
I would leave and wait to see what happens it could get inconveneint but as long as the new pay sufficient you soon make it up.

Reggie_Rebel

Just leave as soon as your wages are in the bank

DKLS

If you can afford to burn bridges, go for for the contract role, I have burnt bridges in the past and it hasn't harmed my career, but you do need to be careful. I last did it a couple of years back and the MD threatened all sorts of action against me, It was all bluff and thunder, in the end all he could do was withhold my wages for a couple of weeks.

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

Obviously you are correct to point out the risk.

However, apart from at very senior levels, does anybody have an idea of how often it actually happens where an employer sues?

Given they would be saving his wages their actual loss would be limited to the EXTRA cost of temporary cover and they would have a duty to mitigate their loss as far as possible.

I imagine the stress this is causing would mean the OP may be unable to avoid taking a weeks self certificated sick leave................;)

I agree entirely. It is very very rare (more common where someone sues for withheld wages, but still not in all cases). The problem always is... you don't know if yours will be the rare case!

I recall a case some years ago. Exactly the same situation more or less. And certainly not a high powered executive type - just a lowly (ish) worker. Sued by the employer (who won) AND the employer wrote to the new employer telling them that they were doing so because the employee had been in breach of contract and that if the new employer had induced the employee to breach of contract they would sue them too! The employee not only lost the case - they were also "finished" by the new employer for landing them in it. Yes, it's exceedingly uncommon. Which is exactly why this employee thought they would get away with it.

SarEl

withabix wrote: »

What does the Contract say about the period of notice that your employer has to give YOU?

If it is less than the month that they say that you have to give, then this is illegal anyway.

An employee is not required to give a greater period of notice than the employer.

Not true. Notice periods for employers and employees do not have to be the same, and in fact it is very common in some sectors of employment (especially in the private sector) for notice from the employer to be less than that required from the employee.

jiffk

ok just an update on this my boss seems fairly friendly about it but the accounts personnell are saying standard contract is a month so i would breach.

So much so that they have withheld this months pay already which should have gone through today but didnt.

Is this a breach of employee/employer trust?

Do i have grounds to declare any contract they think they have with me null and void becuase of this?

Thanks again

Horace

No you cannot declare the contract null and void - if you havent been paid then speak to your boss again..write a letter.

By working there you have accepted their terms and conditions of employment (it doesnt matter that you havent got a signed copy of your contract because by turning up each day and working means that you have accepted their terms). If you are normally weekly paid then you could give a week's notice, however, if you are monthly paid then depending on the terms you either give a month's notice (some places will ask for 3 months' notice). If you leave without fulfilling the terms of your notice then you are in breach. Why not speak to the prospective employer and see if they will hold the job open for you, it is unreasonable of them to ask you to give a week's notice.