If I hand in my notice will I get paid?

pelirocco

K_Limpert wrote: »

Some interesting comments for you to take on board oliverp. Most of them are not factually accurate as they stand, and therefore unsurprisingly aren't qualified with legal reference, but something for you to think about.



Karl Limpert

I would hope you aren't telling the OP that his manager is right not to pay for notice period?

pelirocco

Karl if you arent touting for business why are you using your real name ( google it )there are many qualified posters on here,just because they stay 'anonymous' doesnt make their comments less valid

K_Limpert

Oliverp,

Minimum notice periods (which can be varied with the agreement of both parties, and in your case has been to four weeks) are set-out at s.86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see www legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/86/enacted). As your contract provides for more than the minimum notice, with the exception of summary dismissal for gross misconduct, you will always be entitled to your four week's notice.

Hammyman wrote: »

Actually, there is a set rule, its set out in employment law. If you are dismissed immediately, you are entitled to be paid in lieu for the notice period. This is a statutory right - there's no shades of grey.

So if your manager points out about it being at their discretion, point out they have no choice by law.

I can't comment on what set rule is being referred to here, as I am unfamiliar with such a rule. And as it hasn't specifically been identified, I suppose that does make it a bit of a grey area.


Legally, your employer must permit you to serve your notice period, although they can require you to do this on gardening leave, which is what I would suspect is actually at the manager's discretion. Gardening leave means you would remain an employee of the bank for the duration of the notice period, but not normally required to attend the workplace.

Should your employer decide to dismiss you immediately, this would be unfair under s.98 of the ERA. You have the right (provided by s.94 of the ERA) not to be unfairly dismissed, but under s.108 of that act, you have no right to complain to an employment tribunal without one year's continuous service - which you don't have!

However, as any summary dismissal would be without legitimate reason, you also would have suffered "wrongful dismissal" - a contractual, rather than legal, claim.

For this, you would be able to claim to either an employment tribunal (within 3 months of the dismissal) or to a county court (within six years). The awards would generally be limited to your notice period, so in effect you would get paid this.

Given the above, I very much doubt that a bank would summarily dismiss you, although they may exercise discretion and place you on (paid) gardening leave for the duration of your notice period, and this is where I believe the line manager will have discretion - whether to keep you in work for the notice, or put you on gardening leave.

pelirocco wrote: »

I would hope you aren't telling the OP that his manager is right not to pay for notice period?

As you will find above, no I am not.

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

And they need to pay for any leave you haven't taken, although if you've taken more leave than you've earned they can deduct that from your final salary.

As for the assertion that the employer can deduct any excess leave from your final salary, the Employment Appeals Tribunal disagreed with this in the case of Hill v Chapell (see www .bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1250_01_2003.html). Ergo, unless specifically provided for in the contract of employment, the employer cannot recover any excess holiday pay.

pelirocco wrote: »

Karl if you arent touting for business why are you using your real name ( google it )there are many qualified posters on here,just because they stay 'anonymous' doesnt make their comments less valid

I have explained this elsewhere, but quite simply, I do not give anonymous advice, I believe such important information as this should be given openly & transparently, so readers can know the source. If someone claims to be a barrister, and then hides behind an anonymous name, how can anyone know whether to rely on their advice?

In all forums I am a member of, I put my name on all threads so people know the source, and furthermore I qualify my assertions with references to the law, so people don't have to take my word for anything.

And then, as most posts on MSE are from the employee's point of view, and my business is for employers (I won't normally handle employee's cases), there seems little commercial sense in posting. However, I am posting because there has been a lot of poor information that I've found in the few days on here, and despite the most harsh reception I have so far found, for the benefit of others, I felt it would be helpful to MSE users to correct that.
 

Sunshine12 wrote: »

I cant comment as to whether his information is valuable (particuarly as he has only posted a handful of time) however from what I see on this thread, all he did was slate other people who were trying to assist the OP and didnt actually offer anything at all apart from a bit of a self ego massage.

I must have missed that bit Sunshine. My first post on MSE (post 8 at forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2644807) stated the relevant law for the OP to rely on. From that, I was attacked, with ridiculous accusations made against me.

If you want to refer to valuable information, in the Advice Needed - Employer Ratracting Carried Over Holiday thread (see forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=35466599) it is stated quite categorically that statutory leave cannot be carried over: at post six it is stated by SarEl would she not recommend any employer permitting the statutory leave to be carried forward, as

"the law states specifically that statutory leave both must be taken and may not be carried over leave years. Full stop and no negotiating."

She actually continues in the second paragraph to say that

"in the process [of drafting the legislation] they totally omitted to notice that they left no flexibility for either side."

This is simply wrong! At post 12 of that thread I have referenced the actual law, which clearly demonstrates the aforesaid comments were not correct. Whether that is valuable information or not will depend on the individuals reading it, but I certainly would hope it's helpful to correct posts that are blatantly wrong.


Karl Limpert

Sunshine12

Bottom line is that the OP's asked if his employer should still pay him if he doesnt work his notice (at their request). The simple answer is yes.

Savvy_Sue

K_Limpert wrote: »

As for the assertion that the employer can deduct any excess leave from your final salary, the Employment Appeals Tribunal disagreed with this in the case of Hill v Chapell (see www .bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1250_01_2003.html). Ergo, unless specifically provided for in the contract of employment, the employer cannot recover any excess holiday pay.

Fair enough. I was posting quickly and just alerting the OP to that possibility. If I KNEW I hadn't taken all my leave, I would draw it to the employer's attention and request payment for it. If I KNEW I'd taken more leave than I was entitled to in the year I was leaving, I might not.

I would expect the major banks to have such a clause in their contracts, of course. Whether or not the OP has read his contract is another matter!

Sorry, for 'contract' you should probably read 'written statement of terms and conditions'.

RedSoleShoes

I hope K Limpit (or whatever) has given useful info. I could not actually be bothered to read it myself.

The first few comments I read on this post seemed quite accurate to me.

wuckfit

K_Limpert wrote: »

And then, as most posts on MSE are from the employee's point of view, and my business is for employers (I won't normally handle employee's cases), there seems little commercial sense in posting. However, I am posting because there has been a lot of poor information that I've found in the few days on here, and despite the most harsh reception I have so far found, for the benefit of others, I felt it would be helpful to MSE users to correct that.
 


Karl Limpert

The reason for your harsh reception, if this thread is anything to go by, is that you come across in your posts as being utterly pompous. I don't know you from Adam, so I don't know if this impression is right or wrong. First you posted to say that the other posters' information was wrong and failed to elaborate on that. It looked very much like attention seeking. Furthermore it was unhelpful.

People don't mind their knowledge being challenged if it is done with respect and courtesy. If the challenger's words give the impression of pomposity, then it's going to put other posters' backs up. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter if you're the best Legal Brain in Britain, if you can't deliver the message without an air of superiority, then people aren't going to want to hear it. It's human nature.

In short, without a bit of interpersonal skills, the information however accurate and correct it may be isn't going to be well received, and people will quickly start picking arguments because who's posting and the way they're putting it across.

Karl, I'm sure you've got a lot of excellent knowledge that you could put to good use on MSE. But there are ways to put it across.

K_Limpert

wuckfit wrote: »

The reason for your harsh reception, if this thread is anything to go by, is that you come across in your posts as being utterly pompous. I don't know you from Adam, so I don't know if this impression is right or wrong. First you posted to say that the other posters' information was wrong and failed to elaborate on that. It looked very much like attention seeking. Furthermore it was unhelpful.

Thank you for your considered, thoughtful, and indeed polite, response wuckfit.

As far as I'm concerned, following my first post on here - where I make reference to TUPE laws that are very likely to apply in the case I replied to - I was accused of being three (or even four allowing for the fact the OP exposed their established membership) different posters, with numerous critiques about the rules too - for which I immediately reported myself to abuse@mse, but even that wasn't enough for some. Quite an elaborate exercise I was accused of, given it involved a member of MSE for the last four years, and two established members from another forum that are both involved in different businesses in different parts of the UK.

I received what I would deem rather hostile treatment from the start, and therefore feel I have no obligation to be particularly respectful or courteous towards the people on here. At the end of the day, I charge businesses a lot of money for advice that I was offering to MSE readers for free. If they don't want that advice, simply because I wasn't as polite as I would be otherwise, no loss to me.

If etiquette & manners are more important to members of MSE than actual fact, so be it. It may not help them if they submit a grievance/tribunal claim based solely on the arguments that someone on MSE politely told them their employer's actions were not fair or legal, rather than being able to qualify this with facts, but if the tone of the message is so much more important than the content, they can act on any well-intended (but inaccurate) advice they politely receive. (It won't get them far, but as long as people are nice about it, why allow the actual reason people (some who understandably can be quite concerned about their job) are asking for help to get in the way of any unhelpful advice posted?) Personally when I use forums, I want to get advice/information; how that is presented is rather secondary. I guess MSE forum members have a different view on these things.

wuckfit wrote: »

First you posted to say that the other posters' information was wrong and failed to elaborate on that. It looked very much like attention seeking. Furthermore it was unhelpful.

Of course, it was also 12:24 in the morning, and to be honest I really couldn't be bothered to provide comprehensive legal advice at the end of a long & busy day. But let's not allow that to get in the way of the clique's ambushing. Simply warning the OP off the inaccurate advice they had received (until the morning when grounds for this comment were provided) isn't apparently helpful. Point noted.

wuckfit wrote: »

Karl, I'm sure you've got a lot of excellent knowledge that you could put to good use on MSE. But there are ways to put it across.

Whether I do or not, this would be more helpful now if MSE members read it as "... could have been put to good use on MSE."


Karl Limpert

emilyteach1

K_Limpert wrote: »

I have explained this elsewhere, but quite simply, I do not give anonymous advice, I believe such important information as this should be given openly & transparently, so readers can know the source. If someone claims to be a barrister, and then hides behind an anonymous name, how can anyone know whether to rely on their advice?

You're not supposed to give reliable advice. Of course, there's nothing to stop you from doing so [and it does appear that it could be extremely useful], but as a non-moderated forum, MSE guidelines point out that post shouldn't be construed as official advice, and that users should take all advice with a pinch of salt, whether it's financial, legal or whatever.

With respect, using your real name on a forum does not necessarily mean that you are a qualified lawyer. I'm not aying you aren't, but surely you've heard of impersonation?

oliverp_2

Thanks all for your replies including Karl Limpert, your advice with references IS helpful so thank you for that.

I’ve spoken with another manager (not my line manager) who has told me that if I go to another bank, I will be told to leave immediately, and if it’s any other company that’s where the discretion comes in.

In regards to my holidays, I’ve got a PDF of my contract and it states ...

" If your employment starts or finishes part way through the bank’s holiday year your holiday entitlement will be directly proportional to the actual period worked during that holiday year. If it is not operationally practical for you to take your accrued holiday entitlement prior to termination of employment, the bank will make an equivalent payment to you in your final salary, unless your employment is terminated by reason of gross misconduct or if you fail to give appropriate notice. The bank will also deduct an equivalent payment from your final salary payment for any holiday taken in excess of your entitlement. If this is not possible the bank may take further steps to recover such overpayments.

No payment will be made or deducted from any final salary payments in respect of Bank or Public holiday entitlement not taken or taken in excess of entitlement. "
I have taken about proportionate holiday to what I've worked so if there is a deduction/addition to my final pay it shouldn't make a big difference.