Rights on cancelling employment contract 1 week before start date

andyhatcher82

Hi,


I'm starting a new permanent role in 10 days but today have been offered a more lucrative contract role.
I have already signed a contract with the first company which states 1 month notice period.
What are my rights? Does my 1 month notice already apply or only start from my start date? Can I pull out of that signed contract without any legal connotations or am I required to go ahead with that employment or give notice now and turn up on my start date to work the rest of the notice period?


Thanks for any advice,
Andy

Guest101

The short answer is you can let them know now and walk away.


HOWEVER they can sue you for breach of contract, which would be any loss they suffer in hiring someone to replace you for the period you could not work (so 21 days), less the cost of paying you. (there may be other things but that's my simple understanding)


As for whether the contract is valid before start date, I'm unsure, but would guess yes.

andyhatcher82

Thanks for your quick response.


Having checked the contract I signed, the section that reads "Your period of employment with your employer will commence on the...." they've left the next part blank, i.e. no date.
This was because I agreed the contract before I knew what my start date could be (due to a potentially negotiable 3 month notice period at my current place).
I presume that could work in my favour.

Undervalued

In theory you should give a month's notice (which begins the day after it is issued) then turn up and work from your agreed start date for the remainder of the notice period.

However I would think it is most unlikely the employer would actually want you to do that. As stated, if you simply don't turn up they could make a claim against you for any unavoidable losses this causes. Such claims are not common but do sometimes happen.

Assuming they have to give you the same notice (and that may not be the case) if you offer to work and they refuse to let you then they will have to pay you!

So, it is worth approaching the subject with care......

Guest101

andyhatcher82 wrote: »

Thanks for your quick response.


Having checked the contract I signed, the section that reads "Your period of employment with your employer will commence on the...." they've left the next part blank, i.e. no date.
This was because I agreed the contract before I knew what my start date could be (due to a potentially negotiable 3 month notice period at my current place).
I presume that could work in my favour.

Not necessarily, and it's not down purely to employment law.


If you gave them a subsequent date, even verbally, that would apply to the contract. The law is quite fluid in this regard.


A written contract is a written record of what was agreed, it's not a trump card.


Presumably you have since told them a start date?

andyhatcher82

Yes I have since agreed a start date with them.


Thanks to both of you for your advice, I will discuss the situation with the company first, if they wish me to start I'll serve notice and work the 2.5 weeks!!


Thanks.

Undervalued

andyhatcher82 wrote: »

Yes I have since agreed a start date with them.


Thanks to both of you for your advice, I will discuss the situation with the company first, if they wish me to start I'll serve notice and work the 2.5 weeks!!


Thanks.

I would issue notice first then, if they don't want you to work, they will have to pay you!

sangie595

Undervalued wrote: »

I would issue notice first then, if they don't want you to work, they will have to pay you!

I would exercise great caution in this expectation. I am not convinced it would hold up in a court of law; and it is in any case a bridge forever burned with this organisation - exhorting them to pay you for the pleasure of never getting a day's work out of you is going to stay I their memory. You never know when you might want them.

Undervalued

sangie595 wrote: »

I would exercise great caution in this expectation. I am not convinced it would hold up in a court of law; and it is in any case a bridge forever burned with this organisation - exhorting them to pay you for the pleasure of never getting a day's work out of you is going to stay I their memory. You never know when you might want them.

I agree with you about exercising caution and burning bridges but I see no reason why it wouldn't hold up.

The OP is entitled to give notice and is willing to work, as contracted, until the end of his notice. If the firm don't want him to work that is their choice but they are contracted to pay him.

In any case there is no harm in issuing notice and making it clear that he is able and willing to work from date X to Date Y and seeing what the reaction is. The may suggest a compromise which would leave everybody reasonably happy.

sangie595

Undervalued wrote: »

I agree with you about exercising caution and burning bridges but I see no reason why it wouldn't hold up.

The OP is entitled to give notice and is willing to work, as contracted, until the end of his notice. If the firm don't want him to work that is their choice but they are contracted to pay him.

In any case there is no harm in issuing notice and making it clear that he is able and willing to work from date X to Date Y and seeing what the reaction is. The may suggest a compromise which would leave everybody reasonably happy.

Why would the employer care about the OP being "reasonably happy"? It's fine that the OP has a better job now, but the employer doesn't care about that, do they? They are shafted with no employee. This is just the luck of the draw, but I doubt that they'll take being given a bill for this kindly.

And if it were that easy to get free money from employers through the courts, everyone would be constantly job seeking and handing in their notice the day before they are due to start. Which is why I would question just how a court of law would interpret this situation.

Undervalued

sangie595 wrote: »

Why would the employer care about the OP being "reasonably happy"? It's fine that the OP has a better job now, but the employer doesn't care about that, do they? They are shafted with no employee. This is just the luck of the draw, but I doubt that they'll take being given a bill for this kindly.

And if it were that easy to get free money from employers through the courts, everyone would be constantly job seeking and handing in their notice the day before they are due to start. Which is why I would question just how a court of law would interpret this situation.

You are missing the point.

The OP is willing to work for roughly two and a half weeks. So, they can either let him do that and get some work for their money or, if they so choose, not let him work. However if they choose the latter option they are still contractually obliged to pay.

Where would you draw the line with your argument? Suppose an employee starts then hands in his contractual month's notice within a few days. Again the firm can let him work his notice or opt to tell him to leave at once and give payment in lieu. How is that any different (apart obviously from a few days extra)? Or does it only become OK after an unspecified "decent" number of weeks or months?

Perhaps they should have agreed a notice period on a sliding scale? But they didn't!