Can You Really Get Sued For Not Working Your Notice Period?

Les79

In an ideal world the recruiting company would respect the notice period.

Mind you, I recall an interview with my current employer and a prospective one roughly around the same time. I told them both that I had a 1 month notice period:

- Company A stated "I see that you have a 1 month notice period but it is flexible [I said that on the assumption that I might negotiate a shorter notice period]. If offered the job, we'd need you to start ASAP"

- Company B honoured the 1 month notice period without an issue.

I sort of feel that company A would have been the worst choice tbh. They never offered me a job, but it did put me off at the time.

scaredofdebt

Depending on the circumstances I'd be surprised if many employers sue and win, slavery was abolished in this country quite a while ago.

marliepanda

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Depending on the circumstances I'd be surprised if many employers sue and win, slavery was abolished in this country quite a while ago.

Let me get this straight, you are equating working your notice period (under your contractual terms and pay) to slavery, where people were taken from their homes and forced against their will to do work for no pay.

Get a grip.

Undervalued

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Depending on the circumstances I'd be surprised if many employers sue and win, slavery was abolished in this country quite a while ago.

Nothing whatever to do with slavery!

As an employee you have entered, of your own free will, into a contract with your employer. If you then break that contract you can be held liable of any losses that causes. Like any such situation the employer would have a duty to take reasonable steps to minimise the losses. However he can still look to the employee who leaves without notice to make good any shortfall. It certain circumstances that can well exceed the salary the employee would have earned had they worked their notice.

scaredofdebt

Undervalued wrote: »

Nothing whatever to do with slavery!

As an employee you have entered, of your own free will, into a contract with your employer. If you then break that contract you can be held liable of any losses that causes. Like any such situation the employer would have a duty to take reasonable steps to minimise the losses. However he can still look to the employee who leaves without notice to make good any shortfall. It certain circumstances that can well exceed the salary the employee would have earned had they worked their notice.

What if the employer has broken the contract? As I say, depending on the circumstances. Obviously any employee who leaves without given the required notice can't expect to be paid for that period.

scaredofdebt

marliepanda wrote: »

Let me get this straight, you are equating working your notice period (under your contractual terms and pay) to slavery, where people were taken from their homes and forced against their will to do work for no pay.

Get a grip.

No, I'm equating being forced to work against your will as akin to slavery. Obviously depending on circumstances, ie if being bullied at work and the employer turns a blind eye etc.

marliepanda

scaredofdebt wrote: »

No, I'm equating being forced to work against your will as akin to slavery. Obviously depending on circumstances, ie if being bullied at work and the employer turns a blind eye etc.

It still is nowhere near the same, at all. Not even close.

w06

Leaving without fulfilling your contractual notice period, or shortening it in negotiation with your employer, can rightly have implications with professional bodies as well (General Medical Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council etc)

foolofbeans

I was taken to court by an ex-employer after leaving without working my one month's notice. There were lots of valid reasons why I did it and I would probably do it again if I was in that same position.
However I never expected to be issued with a county court claim for costs to the company from my leaving and the company were angry and looking to make me pay so it could have been a stressful time.
Luckily I got the case dismissed as the employer didn't understand that they could only claim for costs over and above what they would have paid me. They hired another worker to do the job and paid them the same hourly rate as I had so the judge had no choice but to dismiss the case.
Its unlikely and rare that it happens but do be aware that if an employer wants to be vindictive and they knew how to play the law then you could be taken to court and could end up having to pay a hefty sum for simply not working your notice which is not unusually lengthy.

FBaby

Fair or not?

Depends. On face value, not, but nor is it 'fair' that a company can request a 3 months notice whilst only giving 1 month in their terms. Of course, the employee doesn't have to accept it and terminate their employment before starting purely on this basis, but who is realistically likely to be in a position to do that?

I believe that although the company can sue for a breach of contract, and that contract was legally in place the moment the employee started their work, even if they didn't get a copy of their contract for month and therefore might not have been informed of the notice period for some time, the company would have to evidence a loss of income to win. That would mean either by paying someone a higher pay to perform the same duty (and I expect this could be challenged if they didn't try to recruit someone at the same income in the first place), or that not having someone in that position for the time the employee should have still been working resulted in a loss to the company that can only be attributed to the employee not being in the role.

The likelihood of this is so low, I can understand why it is very rare for a company to win unless the role is absolutely essential for safety purposes or the financial stability of the company.