Employer wants to sue me!

zzzLazyDaisy

Uncertain wrote: »

Doesn't absolutely have to be WRITTEN terms, nor does it have to be signed.

Hi, just to clarify - the law requires the employer to provide a written statement of employment particulars within 8 weeks of the start date. However it doesn't have to be signed, and there is no effective way of enforcing this as the only avenue of redress is by making a claim to a tribunal on another matter, in which case you can also add a complaint about failure to provide a written statement.

I think what uncertain is saying (correctly) is that if terms of employment have been agreed and the employee is already working to those terms, then they will be contractually enforceable - if the employer can prove this, which is always much more difficult owing to the lack of written evidence.

Uncertain

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Hi, just to clarify - the law requires the employer to provide a written statement of employment particulars within 8 weeks of the start date. However it doesn't have to be signed, and there is no effective way of enforcing this as the only avenue of redress is by making a claim to a tribunal on another matter, in which case you can also add a complaint about failure to provide a written statement.

I think what uncertain is saying (correctly) is that if terms of employment have been agreed and the employee is already working to those terms, then they will be contractually enforceable - if the employer can prove this, which is always much more difficult owing to the lack of written evidence.

Yes, perhaps I didn't phrase it very well.

The OP could add the failure to provide written particulars to another claim they make against the employer (can't bring this claim on its own). However even if they win this it doesn't automatically mean that there wasn't an agreement for a longer notice period. Obviously it won't be easy for the employer to prove.

From a more practical point of view it strikes me that this is the sort of employer who will start producing back dated letters etc. Often when people do this they end up shooting themselves in the foot but it need watching carefully.

One employer in Scotland got 18 months for perjury as a result!

zzzLazyDaisy

Uncertain wrote: »

One employer in Scotland got 18 months for perjury as a result!

Nice one!

I was very fortunate in my career as I mostly worked for large national and multi-national companies. It was very rare for me to advise small companies (because my firm's charging rates were too high) but if I had any problem with vindictiveness or underhand dealings, it was usually these guys - they get too emotionally involved, whereas in a large company, if a rogue manager pulls a stunt like that, he is in the firing line too.

McKneff

And while we are talking about employment law, I would also like to say lets not take anything away from lllLazyDaisy, she knows exactly what she is talking about too......

Sambucus_Nigra

Absolutely.

Any experts that get bullied off here is a bad thing...esp when it's from MSE themselves!

dseventy

There is no way he can sue for 6 months, 4 weeks is more possible though he has to mitigate this.

D70

getmore4less

dseventy wrote: »

There is no way he can sue for 6 months, 4 weeks is more possible though he has to mitigate this.

D70

if what was writen in the first post is representative of what the employer wrote they(employer) have pretty much said the contract was 1 week even though they claim more earlier.

As both you and Steve failed to give even one week's notice of termination of your employment and, as a result, were in breach of that contract...

Uncertain

dseventy wrote: »

There is no way he can sue for 6 months, 4 weeks is more possible though he has to mitigate this.

D70

Only if the employer can prove that 4 weeks notice was required. The default is one week.

Also, the employer is on very sticky ground regarding the unpaid "rain days". Again he needs to prove that the contract allows for unpaid lay offs. I suspect the employer is attempting to flatulate higher than the normal orifice!

JCS1

dacouch wrote: »

SarEl has the bit between her teeth and has come to his rescue...

http://www.redundancyforum.co.uk/employment-help-advice-employees/6698-employer-wants-sue-me/

Thecleaningguy SarEl is an Employment Barrister so your exemployer will not know what hit him when she gives drafts the letter.

SarEl used to post on here but a very very small minority of ignorant posters did not appreciate the good thing we had an MSE.

Just read SarEl's suggested response, what else but :T:T:T

Uncertain

JCS1 wrote: »

Just read SarEl's suggested response, what else but :T:T:T

Indeed, it is superb!