📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Advice on ambiguous paragraph

So I've just had the 3rd and final consultation meeting about redundancy and have been told my job role has been made redundant but my boss wants me to work the notice period.

But in the 2nd meeting there was a paragraph in the letter i got that says;

"Other payments that would be made regardless of your length of service, would include payments for any part of your contractual notice period, that you are not required to work"

Now i'm not the best with grammar etc but i can read that 2 ways,
1) I have to work it but any they don't want me to work i would get paid anyway
2) I don't have to work it as says you are not required to work

Even if it was number 2 can they change their mind and make me work it anyway

Any help and advice appreciated as obviously i'd prefer to not work it and get paid anyway

Comments

  • Taking the commas in I would say that it is saying that they will pay you for any part of your contractual notice period that you didn't work.

    However, it doesn't say that you don't have to work your contractual notice period, so it seems they have decided that they want you to work it.
    Original Mortgage: February 2010 = £150,000
    MFW #13: January 2019 - £126,155
    Current Feb 2020 = £118,013
  • They are acknowledging that you should be paid for your full notice period whether or not you work all of it.

    It is not in itself saying anything about whether or not you are required to work.

    The reference to not working but being paid is just an example of the kind of thing they know they have to pay you which would not be dependent on your length of service (unlike the redundancy payment amount itself which does depend on your length of service).
  • Undervalued
    Undervalued Posts: 9,682 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    They are acknowledging that you should be paid for your full notice period whether or not you work all of it.

    It is not in itself saying anything about whether or not you are required to work.

    The reference to not working but being paid is just an example of the kind of thing they know they have to pay you which would not be dependent on your length of service (unlike the redundancy payment amount itself which does depend on your length of service).

    Indeed.

    You are entitled to at least statutory notice (1 week for each complete year of service up to a maximum of 12).

    Whether you are required to work it or are paid in lieu is entirely up to the employer.
  • I agree with the others. If your employer does not require you to work your notice period, you'll get paid for it.


    (Pedantic grammatical observation - if it had said "which" instead of "that", some people might argue that it did mean you had no obligation to work your notice, but "which" and "that" are pretty much accepted as interchangeable these days and what the clause means is pretty clear).
  • getmore4less
    getmore4less Posts: 46,882 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper I've helped Parliament
    If the intention was to convey you were not required to work your notice "any" would be redundant as the use of "any" implies a variable amount.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.6K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.9K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.5K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.2K Life & Family
  • 258.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.