We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Leaving employment before notice ends
notmebug
Posts: 19 Forumite
Do you guys know what exactly an employer can do if an employee leaves before the notice period ends apart from not giving references?
0
Comments
-
As with any contract, breach is either enforceable or compensable. In the case of an employment contract by the time they went to court to force you back to work it would be too late and in any event who would want an employee on that basis anyway, so they would seek compensation for any losses incurred as a result of your breach of contract. That might be the additional cost of paying an agency temp £20 per hour rather than the £15 per hour it costs to employ you directly, and/or it could be loss of business (if they can quantify say a number of days sales lost where they'd had to close the branch you were managing for example). Whether they'd bother at all is another matter.Adventure before Dementia!0
-
Theoretically they can sue you for any cost they incur as a result of you breaching the contract, e.g. the extra cost of employing temp agency staff until they can recruit a replacement. In practice they are unlikely to bother unless you are an expensive business critical member of staff
"apart from not giving references" they could give you a bad reference pointing out that you breached your employment contract0 -
They can sue you for any cost incurred due to you leaving early e.g if they had to get an agency worker in to cover your job then they could claim that off you. Not likely but it is a possibility. They could also point out on your reference that you are unreliable.0
-
Cheers guys. I don't need the references so that's not a problem0
-
Just to add to the above comments, in the unlikely event they were to sue they would of course be expected to make all reasonable efforts to minimise their losses.
If you were, for example, to give two months notice instead of three they would have significant time to prepare so would find it harder to argue that any losses (after of course deducting what they save in your wages and overheads) were unavoidable.
With some firms you might find it hard to get them to pay you anything you are owed (eg untaken holiday). Legally they have no right to withhold this but it can sometimes degenerate into a "you sue us and we will sue you" situation.0 -
I can only echo what has already been said.
It's unlikely that the employer would sue you directly unless as has been said you held a significant value to the company (imagine Wayne Rooney walking out on United and refusing to play, or Adrian Newey walking out on Red Bull and refusing to return to and help develop the car).
As, I assume, you are not a member of staff who is a significant valuable asset to the company then any claim would be made via the Small Claims Court. In these courts it would be highly unusual for the employer to be able to claim their costs from you, even if they win, therefore in 99.99% of cases it simply isn't worth the hassle or the cost to the employer.
Plus as has been said, they would have been expected to minimise any losses they incurred.[SIZE=-1]To equate judgement and wisdom with occupation is at best . . . insulting.
[/SIZE]0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards