leaving without working notice period

sangie595

Assuming you are as good at your job as you say you are, that your role is business critical (which it probably is), and that they would need to engage someone immediately even if only in the short term - which is often more expensive - then the chances of them suing you increase exponentially. Especially if they are going to be coming after you for other monies owed.

And you really are getting your knickers in a twist about principles that do not exist. If you are so concerned that your social media posts should not be viewed, as others have said, either make them private or don't post them in the first place. You also have no idea whether they are being viewed daily, and even if they are, who by. For all you know someone else has brought something to the attention of the head teacher. And as for the head teacher supposed to be doing something other than checking your social media posts, judging by the times you have been posting here today, isn't it a school day and don't you have something else you should be doing?

You see how easy it is to make assumptions about people?

I don't suppose that the altercation was about the times the posts were made rather than their content, was it?

omega1987

sangie595 wrote: »

Assuming you are as good at your job as you say you are, that your role is business critical (which it probably is), and that they would need to engage someone immediately even if only in the short term - which is often more expensive - then the chances of them suing you increase exponentially. Especially if they are going to be coming after you for other monies owed.

And you really are getting your knickers in a twist about principles that do not exist. If you are so concerned that your social media posts should not be viewed, as others have said, either make them private or don't post them in the first place. You also have no idea whether they are being viewed daily, and even if they are, who by. For all you know someone else has brought something to the attention of the head teacher. And as for the head teacher supposed to be doing something other than checking your social media posts, judging by the times you have been posting here today, isn't it a school day and don't you have something else you should be doing?

You see how easy it is to make assumptions about people?

I don't suppose that the altercation was about the times the posts were made rather than their content, was it?

I work a split shift and these posts were written outside these hours.

Mersey_2

Undervalued wrote: »

You don't need to be specifically "shown" the school's online policy. You work there, it is up to you to read the rules and abide by them.

That's untrue. A firm does have to make employees aware of company policies in order for them to be enforceable and there's case law on that point.


Omega1987 - It certainly sounds intriguing (that the Head is apparently monitoring your social media). I suppose you could raise this as a grievance, but there seems little point if you're leaving.


The only similar employment case I can think of was a teacher monitoring pupils' social media, but that also involved stalking and inappropriate language - hence the teacher was barred from the profession. Unless the Head is doing anything like this, they can potentially argue that it's within their remit (just) to monitor yourself. Still an odd one though, particularly as you're not a fellow teacher.


Whether the Head objects to your politics, views on religion or football team - who knows. If you were 'called on' in a disciplinary sense, you should really have been given a copy of any complaint and so on and allowed to respond. Although I realise a lot of employers don't abide by the basics of procedure in reality.


You have ECHR rights re freedom of expression. It's true that many firms will discipline you if you bring them into disrepute on social media and such policies have been upheld when challenged in the Courts. But as you haven't done this, I imagine the Head would have difficulty if he wanted to cite your posts as eg gross misconduct.


Although some schools these days do seem to believe they can unilaterally lay down whatever arbitrary rules they like, irrespective of the law. It's currently fashionable for schools to try to get prospective parents to sign agreements not to mention the school adversely on online forums, even though such gagging clauses would not be enforceable.


[Indeed, far from being silenced, whistleblowing and the CSE Inquiry is now resulting in teachers, priests and so on being charged with eg historical child abuse - although of course this should be reported to the authorities rather than naming and shaming online]

sangie595

omega1987 wrote: »

I work a split shift and these posts were written outside these hours.

Of course. But you missed the point. The point was that people reading online material may make assumptions that aren't accurate; and that you have made assumptions that the head is monitoring your online activity daily or that he even say your posts and it wasn't someone else who directed him to them.

Nor, to be objective, can we assume that he hasn't been right to raise an issue about something you may have written. It's very odd that you seem to have absolutely no objection to any other employer reading the material that you post publically on line, just this one. So you don't mind anyone else "invading your privacy" but he isn't supposed to?

But anyway, the fact is that it is still the case that the school would be perfectly entitled to come after you for quantifiable losses as a result of your failing to give notice, and that leaving owing them further monies would probably increase the risk of that, as the more you owe, the more worthwhile it would be. Whilst coming after you for quantifiable loss is actually quite rare (because it is seldom a high value claim), you are taking a greater risk by leaving having not paid back whatever other monies you might owe - including, unless you are paid in arrears, any pay you have received in advance. Whether they do or not is anyone's guess.

getmore4less

Never a good idea to mess with the education system as an employee.

It is a very small world and no matter how frustrating always play by the book unless you want to start closing doors to all the schools in the area.

You need to rise above this and move on, find that other new job, resign and work full notice.

Ultimately the parents and governors will decide the fate of the head.

marlot

omega1987 wrote: »

...left my current one without notice just to continue receiving a monthly wage could I be sued?...

Yes.

I recruited someone who didn't work his notice (his employer apparently had a habit of not paying up). He was successfully sued for the cost of them bringing in an agency person to cover his shifts.

Guest101

marlot wrote: »

Yes.

I recruited someone who didn't work his notice (his employer apparently had a habit of not paying up). He was successfully sued for the cost of them bringing in an agency person to cover his shifts.

Possibly because he didn't turn up to court?


I only say this as they can only sue for additional costs.


So the cost of bringing someone in, less the cost of paying the chap his usual wage. Usually this is negligible and that's why most don't bother

Undervalued

Mersey wrote: »

That's untrue. A firm does have to make employees aware of company policies in order for them to be enforceable and there's case law on that point.

"Make aware" yes. "Specifically shown" no as I said.

OK, it is a fine point and it depends a bit on your or my interpretation of words. However, the point I was making was telling employees to make themselves familiar with a set of policies which are available to them (maybe on the intranet or in a staff handbook) is more than sufficient.

I took the OP to be complaining that because the policy wasn't somehow rammed down his throat he could claim to be unaware of it!

Undervalued

Guest101 wrote: »

Possibly because he didn't turn up to court?


I only say this as they can only sue for additional costs.


So the cost of bringing someone in, less the cost of paying the chap his usual wage. Usually this is negligible and that's why most don't bother

True, as far as wages are concerned, but there can be other knock on costs such as loss of business.

As I said earlier, such claims are not all that common. However given that there seem to be an "uneasy" relationship with the Head, who the OP feels is difficult, maybe it could just happen here.

If the maintenance man walks out without notice it may well take a day or two to find an alternative at any price. Yes the firm has saved two day's wages and this must be deducted but that could be a drop in the ocean against two days lost production.

YouAsked

Guest101 wrote: »

So the cost of bringing someone in, less the cost of paying the chap his usual wage. Usually this is negligible and that's why most don't bother

Ah but that's the point of this whole thread isn't it? The OP doesn't sound like he is entitled to a usual wage as he owes an overpayment plus repayment of course fees. So in this case it could be cost of bringing someone in, plus overpayment plus course fees...

Probably still fairly negligible but still.

[STRIKE]There's a really horrible part of me that doesn't want the OP to "get away with it" - leaving colleagues in the lurch because you don't want to repay money you owe because your funds are low due to spending on a wedding is pretty awful behaviour to me. [/STRIKE]