Not working notice period

leedsfan_3

Hi guys I got offered a job today, and it's permanent, working for a big company who do a lot of internal recruiting so that's good news.
But and there is always one of these, i am replacing someone who is leaving tomorrow as a result of this, they intimated that they wanted someone to start asap.
Obviously because I did not want to lose the job opportunity i explained to them that my notice period was 4 weeks but would endeavour to agree to a 2 week notice period.
Now I am currently only working part time in a fixed term contract anyway so I didn't see the big deal in me organising this. However my current employer has turned around to me adamant that I do have to give a months notice.
So now I am in a quandry really, what ramifications are there in me not fulfiling my notice period? would my current employer withhold reference, would they withhold monies from those 2 weeks that I work? could they withhold the holiday money I have accrued?

The thing is I really don't want to jeopardise this job offer either so this is where my priority has to lie but i just would like a bit more clarity if anyone can offer it.
Thanks in advance once again

SarEl

Ah - it must be Thursday. Or Tuesday, or Saturday - because that's about how often this gets asked. Your notice period is your notice period, no matter what (and if the boot were on the other foot you'd be expecting it). If the employer won't shift then that is their legal right.

The employer cannot lawfully withhold pay or holidays owed - but some do so anyway. You can sue to get any money owed - at which point they may then counter-sue you for any loss incurred (such as covering your post for the two weeks). It doesn't happen often - but it does happen. You are not enitled to a reference (nobody is) so they can certainly refuse you a reference.

And now to add the tale of woe I always tell people when they ask this. A few years ago there was a gentleman who did the same as you. He had equally good reasons (they always are). His employer sued him - and won. They also contacted the new employer and theratened to sue them too - for inducing him to breach his contract becasue they knew he had to work his notice. It never got that far as the new employer sacked him. So he ended up with no job, no reference and a debt. This is a very rare and extreme example - but he also thought it wouldn't happen to him.

You are warned therefore - it isn't worth the risk. The new employer is unlikley to be amused if you did the same thing to them in a few years time, and so should understand that if your notice has to be worked it has to be worked.

Googlewhacker

Also would you OP not kick a fuss up if they say made you redundant but only made you work and paid half of your legal entitlement of notice?

It works both ways

Uncertain

Obviously SarEl is right in what she says but it is very rare indeed for an employer to sue in these circumstances. Most of the few instances of this happening tend to be at very senior levels. But, make no mistake, it could and occasionally does happen.

To sue successfully the employer would actually have to suffer a quantifiable loss and would also have to mitigate that loss as far as reasonably possible. Obviously they would be saving your salary and employment overheads so the loss would have to exceed this.

Next most employers, unless they are choosing to be deliberately awkward, will realise that there is little point in having somebody working who really doesn't want to be there. Some see the issue the other way and put staff who give notice on immediate "garden" leave as they don't want them there under such circumstances.

Finally, I have know new employers to agree to underwrite any claim if they are really keen for somebody to start sooner. Naughty and unusual but it does happen.

nimbo

is there any chance that you may have time owing?

or annual leave????

with you only working oart time could you up your time to gain time in leiu?????

good luck.

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

Naughty and unusual but it does happen.

Very naughty. Becasue that is an inducement to breach of contract, and actionable in law if discovered.

Uncertain

SarEl wrote: »

Very naughty. Becasue that is an inducement to breach of contract, and actionable in law if discovered.

True.

However, it is no "naughtier" in my view than firms deliberately breaching contract by paying PILON just to dodge the one year rule for ET claims. But that, amazingly, is legal!

Googlewhacker

Uncertain wrote: »

True.

However, it is no "naughtier" in my view than firms deliberately breaching contract by paying PILON just to dodge the one year rule for ET claims. But that, amazingly, is legal!

I thought personal opinions didn't count when the law is the law