How does a company get away with this?

[Deleted User]

Not me but has served as curing kind of the avoidance of doubt while I hate seeing people scared

Someone I know has been threatened with court action as a national minimum wage worker when they got the opportunity of a new job and thought 4 weeks notice didn't apply, I see lots of reference to and am well aware of the 2 year black cloud for new employees so why doesn't this work both ways?

Like me they don't have their probation period confirmed in writing (even my supervisor thought I could be rid of on a weeks notice) and are less 2 years, what stops an employer from saying see ya with a week's notice if boot were on other foot? likewise why would you want to hold someone to their notice period if it could be detrimental to the business?

The employee handbook issue not given was raised but then told this can be treated as available on a request basis? when it isn't given as standard or widely available

Bantex_2

Lost me....

King_Nothing

Bantex wrote: »

Lost me....

Same :huh:

rach_k

Are you asking why the employee has to give 4 weeks' notice during their probationary period, even though they can be let go with only 1 week's notice from the employer?

InsideInsurance

Bantex wrote: »

Lost me....

They are complaining about having a notice period and being sued for not working the notice period

Deleted%20User wrote: »

they got the opportunity of a new job and thought 4 weeks notice didn't apply, I see lots of reference to and am well aware of the 2 year black cloud for new employees so why doesn't this work both ways?

Why doesnt the 2 year rule apply? Because after 50 years an employee can just leave without having to give reason!! Why would you want to limit an employee's ability to resign?!?!?!?!

Notice periods are there for mutual protection, the two year rule doesnt change that so yes they can now get rid of someone after 22 months without having to give reason but they'd still need to pay the 4 weeks notice period or CIL for it.

I am sure if the employer had tried to get rid of them without notice then they would also have very much been wanting to enforce the contractual term of requiring 4 weeks notice/pay.

You cant have it both ways.

Takeaway_Addict

Deleted%20User wrote: »

Not me but has served as curing kind of the avoidance of doubt while I hate seeing people scared

Someone I know has been threatened with court action as a national minimum wage worker when they got the opportunity of a new job and thought 4 weeks notice didn't apply, I see lots of reference to and am well aware of the 2 year black cloud for new employees so why doesn't this work both ways?

Like me they don't have their probation period confirmed in writing (even my supervisor thought I could be rid of on a weeks notice) and are less 2 years, what stops an employer from saying see ya with a week's notice if boot were on other foot? likewise why would you want to hold someone to their notice period if it could be detrimental to the business?

The employee handbook issue not given was raised but then told this can be treated as available on a request basis? when it isn't given as standard or widely available

If she is contracted for 4 weeks notice then she is bound by it so regardless if she is on NMW or 100k she can be quite rightly sued. Whether or not the employer does is entirely upto them but the likelyhood diminishes the lower paid a member of staff is.

And remember the 2 year thing the employer has the employee has for their entire life, no reason required to quit a job.

bargainbetty

If the worker has left the company before the term of notice has been worked, the company may have incurred losses: cover staff, loss of business etc. It is entirely reasonable for the employer to expect the worker to abide by the terms of their contract. If the contract states that the probation period is three months and the notice period is four weeks thereafter, then it would be reasonable to expect to work it.

If no contract was ever provided, then you have a different deal. However, your argument that you haven't had your probation 'confirmed' is a tenuous one at best. They have continued paying the worker and employing them... why should the terms of the contract not apply?

ceh209

I *think* the OP is saying someone assumed they were on a week's notice as they were never told otherwise, and now the company is saying it was 4 weeks.

Though, given the lack of comprehension in the original post, I could be completely wrong...

agrinnall

What was the court action threatened? The company can only claim actual and unavoidable losses as a result of an employee not working their notice, for a minimum wage job the losses probably wouldn't be enough to justify the cost of taking action.

Did the employee cave in and pay something back or have they called the employer's bluff?

Did the employee ever ask to see the employee handbook?

[Deleted User]

Sorry to disappoint it isn't me in this situation, so please don't aim this at me. I'm asking for someone who was scared stiff.


However a big issue has been made out of, due to me and this person being in the same position of not having employment confirmed and now there is different management coming in blah, blah while I've always said continuing to work somewhere automatically accepts conditions - my supervisor is trying to back peddle having previously tried telling me I could be got rid of on a 1 weeks notice, which to my mind can very really happen (after all under 2 years neither do we have the ability to hold the company to account at a tribunal for contracts that are potentially rather miss-leading and confusing?) personally I think probation periods should be classed as first 1 or 2 years but that's me!


I think the handbook suggestion comes from being tried as part of the saga first reactions and all that, along with he/she done it, was allowed, why not me (I did try to explain this argument won't work)


Anyway the situation is left that someone is upset, lost a better job as staying they don't want to call bluff even though I think they should, my worry for them, was next month they could be asked to leave with 1 week with no recourse whatsoever, I also appreciate maybe 'their being made an example of' so feel for them if that's alright, myself I'll only look stupid because I've applied for jobs recently on the back of what my supervisor told me when I'd queried it to be told us minions were only 1 week so I'm glad on the other hand it has come about for clarity sake, thanks for answering anyhow

Undervalued

Deleted%20User wrote: »

(after all under 2 years neither do we have the ability to hold the company to account at a tribunal for contracts that are potentially rather miss-leading and confusing?)

Yes you do actually.

With less than two years service you can't claim UNFAIR dismissal (except for reason of protected discrimination).

However you can claim WRONGFUL dismissal i.e. breach of contract. There is no qualifying period for such a tribunal claim. Failure to give (or pay) the contracted notice would be an example of such a claim.