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

getmore4less

FBaby wrote: »

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.

The terms only come into effect at the time they become known(or should have been known*), if you get new "to you" terms you can reject them or carry on, at that point if the change was notice period then you could reject and give your previous notice, in a case where this was the first time notice had communicated statutory notice would apply.


* Should have known could be, as an example, if there was a staff handbook or intranet page that had the basics on it like notice periods and you had been told of such a document but did not bother to read it.

xapprenticex

If a company doesnt let you work your notice then they are shady.


If you gave them the impression you could leave in the time they want during interview, then its your fault.

FBaby

Thanks getmore4less, interesting information and indeed a good point to correct.

Not that it changes much though as the options available are none that would favour the employee. You can accept a job, then ask as soon as possible for their handbook, see that the notice is 3 months, challenges it and say you don't agree, and you can expect them to be concerned that you are a trouble maker and retract their offer. Same with challenging at a later date and see yourself sacked without any reasons as within 2 years of employment, so whenever or however you challenge a clause in a contract, you are taking a massive risk in terms of employment continuity, and most people are not in a position to take that risk to balance the very small chance that they would find themselves in court defending themselves for having broken their notice period.

In the end, it's a chance anyone will take if indeed they have more to lose than gain by staying for the full period of notice.

Undervalued

scaredofdebt wrote: »

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.

Yes, if the employer commits a serious enough breach of the contract that a reasonable employee could not be expect to continue working then they would be entitled to walk out without notice. That is, if you like, the reverse of when an employee does something serious enough to be considered gross misconduct and can be dismissed without notice.

steampowered

If you don't work your notice period, you are technically in 'breach of contract'.

This would mean that your old employer could sue you for any losses as a result of your breach of contract.

However, if the old employer is not paying your salary, it is almost impossible for them to prove loss.

This is usually a very low risk. It is a higher risk in a situation where your old employer needs to hire an agency worker to replace you, in which case you would be liable for the difference between what the employer would have had to pay you and the amount it actually paid the agency.

Of course if you leave early without agreement you might not get a reference in future.

Personally, if it is really necessary to start at your new employer in 3 weeks time, I would do that.