Backing out of a job last minute.

creditcardwoes

My son has just got himself into a sticky situation. He recently started a new job. Shortly after joining he was offered another job. It was more money, and a more senior position. He accepted the role, signed a contract and handed in his notice. He is due to start at the new firm next week. The first company has just offered him a new position though. The roles are now similar, the package is similar. 

My first suggestion was list out all the pro's and con's. While he sees risks with both, the existing company came out on top.

He is worried that the new company could sue him for breach of contract if at this very late stage,  he tells them he isn't joining them on Monday. I said this sort of thing happens all the time and it was unlikely, but legally they probably could. I added if he really thinks they'd do that then maybe they aren't right for him anyway. I think that may have made it worse!

I think I can tell he wants to stay where he is, but he's worried that he could end up with a massive bill if he does. Has anyone got any experience of this sort of thing? 

Lomast

I have heard of people being sued for the costs of recruitment and of employing temps to cover the breached contract

74jax

I've had many people not turn up on their first day. (construction).
Is annoying but we have never taken it further. 

creditcardwoes

Lomast said:

I have heard of people being sued for the costs of recruitment and of employing temps to cover the breached contract

Ouch, that's not good news. I was led to believe it was extremely rare.

Having looked at the contract its a bit odd. Rather than making him a conditional offer, subject to the usual things like references/ background checks etc, they just issued him with a contract but then put a conditions of offer section in there making the employment contract conditional. The contract is essentially both the conditional offer and the contract of employment in one.

Apparently he called them up to find out whether they'd completed their reference checks but they hadn't and haven't as yet provided any confirmation that they have satisfied themselves that all the conditions they'd set out are actually met. As such the Contract of Employment could in theory still be withdrawn and therefore be considered a conditional offer rather than an unconditional one.  I've never seen that before. All very confusing!

Personally I wouldn't consider handing in my notice until a conditional offer turns into an unconditional one following satisfactory completion of checks, so seeing the two stages merged into one like that makes me wonder if he could reasonably back out on that basis.

I guess the other option, which seems rather crazy is to resign/ terminate the contract but offer to work the notice period. That way he wouldn't be in breach of the contract terms. It seems unlikely a company would want someone who hasn't started yet to work their notice period and that they'd just agree to call it quits.

 

[Deleted User]

Most of the times your name just becomes mud and or marked. - years ago I turned down a job to stay at a PPI company instead of going to work at a more local breakdown company - a month on I was made redundant from the PPI company (they never found out and I didn't see the cull happening until it was far to late) bumped ironically into one of their staff a couple of months on when we were then both needing new employment who was like yeah your name was mud for half day but they got over it - I've never had an application considered again by the company I backed out of.
My new Manager rung me up today to check I was accepting the job saying they were mental busy this week, I honestly haven't heard of a new starter courtesy call in these times! - I was starting to have doubts of should I go or stay and become even more unused to working alongside others, but, my current company wouldn't hesitate to get rid of me if I wasn't performing/called in sick/customers are/were not there due to Covid changes/just don't ask how I know etc to the point I hope a poorly performing week continues for one more day as it makes the chat easier. 

General_Grant

creditcardwoes said:

My son has just got himself into a sticky situation. He recently started a new job. Shortly after joining he was offered another job. It was more money, and a more senior position. He accepted the role, signed a contract and handed in his notice. He is due to start at the new firm next week. The first company has just offered him a new position though. The roles are now similar, the package is similar. 

My first suggestion was list out all the pro's and con's. While he sees risks with both, the existing company came out on top.

He is worried that the new company could sue him for breach of contract if at this very late stage,  he tells them he isn't joining them on Monday. I said this sort of thing happens all the time and it was unlikely, but legally they probably could. I added if he really thinks they'd do that then maybe they aren't right for him anyway. I think that may have made it worse!

I think I can tell he wants to stay where he is, but he's worried that he could end up with a massive bill if he does. Has anyone got any experience of this sort of thing? 

If this were an actual senior position that he had found, rather than more senior to the one he already had, I would have expected the employer would not be so lax about references and written contracts.  So I think it very unlikely that this is a position where they would go to the trouble of suing for breach of contract, especially as the actual nature of that contract is in doubt. 

creditcardwoes

General_Grant said:

If this were an actual senior position that he had found, rather than more senior to the one he already had, I would have expected the employer would not be so lax about references and written contracts.  So I think it very unlikely that this is a position where they would go to the trouble of suing for breach of contract, especially as the actual nature of that contract is in doubt. 

I suppose its all relative but I'd consider it an actual senior position. Its a director level appointment and not far off a six figure salary. That's why he felt he had to accept it. To be honest I'm stunned that any firm wouldn't have a two stage process of issuing a conditional offer, then doing their checks, then offer a contract once those checks have been completed. 

While you could read into it that they are lax, I wonder if that would be underestimating them, its the other way round, and it might actually be rather calculating and devious. By issuing a contract of employment and building the subjectivities you'd normally find in a conditional offer letter into it, seems to me it creates more opportunities for the employer to terminate without any cost/penalty to them. 

Thinking about it its actually in their interests not to complete all their checks and not to confirm all their subjectivities are satisfied. By leaving those things open ended, in theory they could get round to completing those checks any time, decide the results are unsatisfactory to them, and then that would give them a valid reason to terminate the contract with no notice and no severance. If we go into another lockdown in 3 months time, business takes a turn for the worse, or they decide they don't want to continue their expansion plans, what's to stop them saying they weren't able to get satisfactory references so they are terminating the contract, or using one of the other conditions to that end.

The more I look at the contract the more it looks to me like its been prepared by someone rather sly. 

74jax

creditcardwoes said:

General_Grant said:

If this were an actual senior position that he had found, rather than more senior to the one he already had, I would have expected the employer would not be so lax about references and written contracts.  So I think it very unlikely that this is a position where they would go to the trouble of suing for breach of contract, especially as the actual nature of that contract is in doubt. 

I suppose its all relative but I'd consider it an actual senior position. Its a director level appointment and not far off a six figure salary. That's why he felt he had to accept it. To be honest I'm stunned that any firm wouldn't have a two stage process of issuing a conditional offer, then doing their checks, then offer a contract once those checks have been completed. 

While you could read into it that they are lax, I wonder if that would be underestimating them, its the other way round, and it might actually be rather calculating and devious. By issuing a contract of employment and building the subjectivities you'd normally find in a conditional offer letter into it, seems to me it creates more opportunities for the employer to terminate without any cost/penalty to them. 

Thinking about it its actually in their interests not to complete all their checks and not to confirm all their subjectivities are satisfied. By leaving those things open ended, in theory they could get round to completing those checks any time, decide the results are unsatisfactory to them, and then that would give them a valid reason to terminate the contract with no notice and no severance. If we go into another lockdown in 3 months time, business takes a turn for the worse, or they decide they don't want to continue their expansion plans, what's to stop them saying they weren't able to get satisfactory references so they are terminating the contract, or using one of the other conditions to that end.

The more I look at the contract the more it looks to me like its been prepared by someone rather sly. 

Not really. It's in writing. You can read it and seak advice.
You aren't forced to sign it. 

Had information not been there - that could be subjective. But it's all there, he chose to accept it and sign it, now he's changed his mind.

I don't understand the last bit in bold. In 3 months time if they want rid of him they could just get rid of him (other than protectives of course) having his contracted worded how it is doesn't change that.  So that makes no difference. 

JamoLew

If your son is about to be paid a near 6 figure sum for a Director level appointment - I would suggest he should be  more than capable of making his own decision and sorting his own "mess" out

Marcon

creditcardwoes said:

General_Grant said:

If this were an actual senior position that he had found, rather than more senior to the one he already had, I would have expected the employer would not be so lax about references and written contracts.  So I think it very unlikely that this is a position where they would go to the trouble of suing for breach of contract, especially as the actual nature of that contract is in doubt. 

I suppose its all relative but I'd consider it an actual senior position. Its a director level appointment and not far off a six figure salary. That's why he felt he had to accept it. To be honest I'm stunned that any firm wouldn't have a two stage process of issuing a conditional offer, then doing their checks, then offer a contract once those checks have been completed. 

If your little soldier has just landed a job with a near 6 figure salary, why does he need his mum to do the nursemaiding? He seems to be doing pretty and could go on to do even better (and I hope he will!).

creditcardwoes said:

While you could read into it that they are lax, I wonder if that would be underestimating them, its the other way round, and it might actually be rather calculating and devious. By issuing a contract of employment and building the subjectivities you'd normally find in a conditional offer letter into it, seems to me it creates more opportunities for the employer to terminate without any cost/penalty to them. 

Thinking about it its actually in their interests not to complete all their checks and not to confirm all their subjectivities are satisfied. By leaving those things open ended, in theory they could get round to completing those checks any time, decide the results are unsatisfactory to them, and then that would give them a valid reason to terminate the contract with no notice and no severance. If we go into another lockdown in 3 months time, business takes a turn for the worse, or they decide they don't want to continue their expansion plans, what's to stop them saying they weren't able to get satisfactory references so they are terminating the contract, or using one of the other conditions to that end.

You clearly have no relevant legal knowledge, so why not let him sort himself out and grow up a bit in the process? If your SON has issues with a contract, he needs to take proper legal advice - which he can well afford to pay for.  Having mummy rushing to the rescue will do nothing for his independence - and how would you feel if your interference (which in truth is what it is), based on comments on a free website, turns out to be completely wrong?

creditcardwoes said:

The more I look at the contract the more it looks to me like its been prepared by someone rather sly. 

Or someone who is an expert in employment law and is, quite correctly, doing their best to protect the employer's position. 

Savvy_Sue

The law has changed recently to require employers to give new staff their contract on their first day. So it doesn't surprise me that some employers might issue it in advance, but leave conditions in it if, eg references have not yet been received. 

(There is still no effective remedy if the employer doesn't manage this ...)