Leaving without working notice

74jax

This is not for me, I'm not working, but following a chat with a friend it got me thinking, (we don't have The Arms anymore). 
If someone worked for a new company, recieved contract which stated 1 month notice (either side), and handed in their notice after 3 weeks (didn't state 1 month notice, just I'm writing to formally hand in my notice). Due to being new and not knowing systems, they were asked to complete that day and then leave at the end of the day, would they be paid in lieu of notice?
Nothing was mentioned other than 'sorry its not worked out, just complete this today and then leave tonight'.
That's all I have sorry.... And it is just me thinking out loud on here, on one hand I think yes, they gave notice but on the other they should have clarified when asked to leave that day so I think not.
Does anyone actually know the legal standing? 

Undervalued

74jax said:

This is not for me, I'm not working, but following a chat with a friend it got me thinking, (we don't have The Arms anymore). 
If someone worked for a new company, recieved contract which stated 1 month notice (either side), and handed in their notice after 3 weeks (didn't state 1 month notice, just I'm writing to formally hand in my notice). Due to being new and not knowing systems, they were asked to complete that day and then leave at the end of the day, would they be paid in lieu of notice?
Nothing was mentioned other than 'sorry its not worked out, just complete this today and then leave tonight'.
That's all I have sorry.... And it is just me thinking out loud on here, on one hand I think yes, they gave notice but on the other they should have clarified when asked to leave that day so I think not.
Does anyone actually know the legal standing? 

Yes, they should be paid.

The employee gave notice which was contractually required to be one month. Providing they didn't say it was a shorter period of notice it is reasonable to assume that it was one month as required in the contract.

The employer told then to go sooner. As they too had agreed to a month's notice in the contract then the employee is entitled to either be allowed to work their notice or to receive pay in lieu. They continue to accrue holiday during the notice period (roughly one day for each two weeks) so they are entitled to be paid for that too.

This all assumes that a contract (doesn't have to be in writing) was agreed. In the absence of such an agreement statutory notice would apply, which is zero either way during the first month of employment!

68ComebackSpecial

The notice period can be varied, or waived, if both sides agree. It sounds as though the resignation letter was interpreted as seeking immediate release, the employer agreed and your friend then went along with it/ didn't clarify that this hadn't been their intention.

Sandtree

if this is truly "for a friend" then it sounds like aspects of chinese whispers and later regret

Contracts stipulate what can be enforced via a court or tribunial etc, any two parties can always agree to do something else if they are both in agreement. 

If your friend had just started the job and handed in their resignation there would have been a conversation about when they cease employment. Contractually it would have been in a months time but staying on for a month after only 3 weeks service would more than double their time there and so it'd seem fairly likely that they'd be wanting to leave earlier if possible. Certainly from an employers perspective a new recruit is never as valuable as an experienced hand so can see them also wanting to cut their losses and agree to an earlier end.

My guess is your friend has agreed to leave at the end of the day and nows wanting to backtrack. 

Why are they leaving after just 3 weeks?

74jax

Sandtree said:

if this is truly "for a friend" then it sounds like aspects of chinese whispers and later regret

Contracts stipulate what can be enforced via a court or tribunial etc, any two parties can always agree to do something else if they are both in agreement. 

If your friend had just started the job and handed in their resignation there would have been a conversation about when they cease employment. Contractually it would have been in a months time but staying on for a month after only 3 weeks service would more than double their time there and so it'd seem fairly likely that they'd be wanting to leave earlier if possible. Certainly from an employers perspective a new recruit is never as valuable as an experienced hand so can see them also wanting to cut their losses and agree to an earlier end.

My guess is your friend has agreed to leave at the end of the day and nows wanting to backtrack. 

Why are they leaving after just 3 weeks?

I don't really know, it was just mentioned in passing, I didn't know they had even started as we hadn't spoken in a while so it was a 'catch up'. I left work last summer after the death of my mam and admit I haven't been great in keeping up with contact (new years resolution ☺️).
We were talking about how I've practically retired and have been  volunteering and love it, was mentioned they weren't sure if they could volunteer or not and then we got on to they didn't know whether to expect a notice payment. 
It was all causal in conversation, like I said in OP, it would have been one for the Arms of it was still around. 

[Deleted User]

I recently left a company at it, during their quietest moment, I surrendered 3 weeks of pay. I haven't been paid. The company probably rubbed their hands at the saving. My job was advertised within the week later as 2 x 15 hours roles. It only needed just under a week on the apparent greatest job board anyway. No claim form seen which I would defend anyway when I learnt that that the person working 9:30-2:30 was always earning more the full-timer. Thousands more sadly so I left them to get on with it.