3 month notice period

ELOUISE

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Absolute worse case is that they don't accept your reduced notice period and so when you don't turn up then you are noted as being absent without leave and sacked for gross misconduct. They then also pursue you though the courts for breach of contract and the losses they sustain by having to either pay overtime to others or by having to get a temp in at above market rates etc plus any lossed business because of the time it takes to do this and/ or because of others not having your skill set.

You end up with a sacked for gross misconduct and a CCJ.

Your new employers do a late reference on you and find out you were sacked from your last place for gross misconduct and so terminate your employment giving you the minimum notice as required whilst under probation.

You then have to find a job with a two sackings from your last two jobs.

If you want worst case, then thats it. Reality is probably a lot less severe but that isnt what you asked

Wow thank you for your reply I that is a real doomsday scenario! I am waiting for my offer letter to come via post. Then I will talk with my employers and take it from there... Thanks everyone for the advice.

Hammyman

ELOUISE wrote: »

I understand i will forfeit any accrued holiday but what is the worse case scenario?

I know potentially my employer could sue for breach of contract but I think this unlikely.

Can my employer though refuse to give me a reference? Could they deduct 6 weeks pay from my final salary as I will not work my notice period? I am unsure of the repercussions of handing my notice in early so I would be grateful for any advice anyone can give thank you.

The worst case is that they refuse to let you go early, you decide to go anyway and they sue you for the costs of taking on temporary staff.

They can refuse to give you a reference, as there is no law forcing them to, or they can give you a bad reference because they are legally entitled to as long as what they put in it is true.

You would not get paid for time you've not worked so if the notice period is 3 months and you only work 6 weeks, you'll only be paid for what you work.

Uncertain

Most employers are sensible enough to realise that forcing somebody to work against their will for three months is not an ideal situation so it is generally possible to reach some sort of compromise. Employees who don't want to be at work tend to go sick a lot, lack concentration, commitment etc etc....

Any well run business should have some sort of contingency for staff absence, after all you could have been in hospital or even died in which case they would have had no notice at all!

Others have pointed out the potential risk of being sued should you not work your notice. Although there is a risk my view is that they are somewhat overstating it. The employer could make a claim for any unavoidable losses they suffer as a result but they would have a duty to minimise this as much as possible. The would also have to deduct what they saved in your wages from any claim.

So, if you gave the employer two months notice rather than three they would have a far harder job making a successful claim than if you simply walked out. OK, in theory they might still be able to argue some unavoidable losses but they would have to work much harder.

Obviously there is the reference issue if you part on bad terms so I would always advise against doing so if at all possible.

teabelly

If the new employer won't wait then I'd tell them too bad. If they want you for the job they'll have to as you're contractually obliged to give 3 months notice and they wouldn't appreciate it if you changed jobs with them and skipped off before your notice period ended. Most decent employers would have sussed out notice periods before making a firm job offer and decided whether it would work or not. If they haven't then that is a warning sign that they're disorganised and potentially unrealistic. That would ring warning bells for me.

ELOUISE

Hi thanks to all that commented and offered their advice and opinions on this topic.

I did hand in my resignation and gave one months notice. At first my line manager did not accept resignation and said he needed to discuss with HR as he would expect me to work my notice period at least until he found a replacement.

However the next day he came back to me and said ok I accept your resignation as though the company could sue for breach of contract this would be too costly for the company. Furthermore though he reckons he will not give me a "bad reference" as I have worked hard for them and he had no complaints. He will however ask HR to put a note on the reference saying i did not work my notice period. I am not sure if they will actually do this, and can accept this if this is the worse they will do as my new employer knows this already and I can explain my actions to any future employers. Futhermore, I do have some holiday due that was afraid i would lose but have been told I will still get this.

So I am relieved I am leaving on good terms, thanks again for your comments :beer:

an9i77

ELOUISE wrote: »

Hi thanks to all that commented and offered their advice and opinions on this topic.

I did hand in my resignation and gave one months notice. At first my line manager did not accept resignation and said he needed to discuss with HR as he would expect me to work my notice period at least until he found a replacement.

However the next day he came back to me and said ok I accept your resignation as though the company could sue for breach of contract this would be too costly for the company. Furthermore though he reckons he will not give me a "bad reference" as I have worked hard for them and he had no complaints. He will however ask HR to put a note on the reference saying i did not work my notice period. I am not sure if they will actually do this, and can accept this if this is the worse they will do as my new employer knows this already and I can explain my actions to any future employers. Futhermore, I do have some holiday due that was afraid i would lose but have been told I will still get this.

So I am relieved I am leaving on good terms, thanks again for your comments :beer:

Good-o!

Uncertain

shanmimily wrote: »

you could use what holidays you can to reduce it, if they will accept that,t hat is.

That is the problem of course.

If an employer is desperate for somebody to work the whole of a lengthy notice period (with the inevitable issues of their heart not being in a job they are leaving etc etc) then it is unlikely they will want them taking holiday.

prowla

As far as I can see regarding suing, etc. (though it is not applicable now):
1. The employer values the employee's time at the rate of their salary.
2. If the employee doesn't work then their maximum exposure should be the salary for that period.
3. But the employer has witheld that salary because the employee hasn't earned it, and therefore has saved that precise amount.

Uncertain

prowla wrote: »

As far as I can see regarding suing, etc. (though it is not applicable now):
1. The employer values the employee's time at the rate of their salary.
2. If the employee doesn't work then their maximum exposure should be the salary for that period.
3. But the employer has witheld that salary because the employee hasn't earned it, and therefore has saved that precise amount.

Doesn't work like that!

Although it is rare for anybody to be successfully sued for this it can happen.

An employer runs a business to make a profit and therefore, overall, staff have to generate more income than the total cost of employing them - otherwise there is no point.

Just like equipment, staff can break down (i.e go sick or even die) so a sensible business has to have some contingency for this happening. It may be that this is simply paying others overtime or hiring in some temporary help. Hour for hour this will cost more than a basic salary and may well be less productive. This is therefore a clear cost to the employer obviously less whatever they save in wages.

Beyond this it get more difficult. If an individual is so valuable to the business that they lose considerably more if they are absent the the firm it taking quite a gamble. The would have to work harder to claim this aspect of their losses but it can sometimes be done.

In any legal claim you have a duty to take all reasonable steps to mitigate your losses. You can't just sit on your hands and expect a court to award you the whole lot. You would need to convince a court that, despite doing everything you sensibly could, you are still out of pocket.