Reciprocal Notice Periods

glenbois

Just wondering whether the notice periods for employee/employer are legal for my employer.

Employer notice period are 1 weeks notice for every year of service except in the first 2 years where it is 1 week.

Employee notice period 4 weeks.

Seems to be biased towards employer in first 3 years, especially in the first 2 years but is it legal?

agrinnall

The employer's notice periods to you are the statutory minimum amounts.

https://www.gov.uk/redundant-your-rights/notice-periods

Your notice period to your employer is whatever is in the employment contract that you agreed to. I don't believe there is any need for the periods to be reciprocal.

Takeaway_Addict

but after 4 years it is in favour of the employee...

swings and roundabouts

Undervalued

Perfectly legal!

InsideInsurance

Undervalued wrote: »

Perfectly legal!

Is it?

There can be issues with non-employment contracts where it is not considered that both parties have equal negotiating power (ie consumer -v- business) and the contract is loaded in favour of the one with lesser power.

I dont know if there are special rules around employment law that negate this general principle.

Generally in legal terms the longer the notice period is considered better so the employee having to give more notice than the employer in the early years could be unenforcable.

Undervalued

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Is it?

There can be issues with non-employment contracts where it is not considered that both parties have equal negotiating power (ie consumer -v- business) and the contract is loaded in favour of the one with lesser power.

I dont know if there are special rules around employment law that negate this general principle.

Generally in legal terms the longer the notice period is considered better so the employee having to give more notice than the employer in the early years could be unenforcable.

But by your argument, it would swing the other way after four years. By twelve years the employee would have the upper hand by a ratio of two to one!

InsideInsurance

Undervalued wrote: »

But by your argument, it would swing the other way after four years. By twelve years the employee would have the upper hand by a ratio of two to one!

But that would be fine because the one without bargaining power is allowed to have preferential terms. The theory of the law is just to stop big companies "forcing" little people/ companies from signing contracts that go against them.

Undervalued

InsideInsurance wrote: »

But that would be fine because the one without bargaining power is allowed to have preferential terms. The theory of the law is just to stop big companies "forcing" little people/ companies from signing contracts that go against them.

So who is in the stronger bargaining position out of Jeremy Clarkson and the BBC?

:rotfl:

Seriously though, I'm 99.9% certain the OP would not win an employment tribunal based on your theory in the first two years.

getmore4less

Undervalued wrote: »

But by your argument, it would swing the other way after four years. By twelve years the employee would have the upper hand by a ratio of two to one!

12 to 4 is a ratio of 3 to 1

(it is not 8 to 4 if that is what you think)

Undervalued

getmore4less wrote: »

12 to 4 is a ratio of 3 to 1

(it is not 8 to 4 if that is what you think)

Yes, quite right.

The problem is I have to take my shoes and socks off to count above 10.

:rotfl:

getmore4less

Employees are not consumers.