Contract wording clarification regarding "notice entitlement"

ScionOfFortune

I think that there is a discrepancy in my contract of employment, that means my employer is entitled to less notice should I leave, and I am if I am asked to leave by them. I am aware that this is perfectly possible and legal.

The company with whom I signed the contract, worded the notice period as being one month, specifically "terminable by either you or the Company on giving one month’s written notice". Further wording indicates that if I am with the company for five years "your notice entitlement will increase to five weeks". there is a further clause that if I am with the company for more than five years, again "you will be entitled to a further week's notice" for each year of service. 
However, that company was acquired a couple of years ago, with no new contracts signed. I am now leaving the organisation, having worked here for six years. The HR department and my manager are refusing to discuss the wording, and simply stating that I must give six weeks notice. 

Incidentally, there is precedent for someone who was only required to give a month's notice despite being with the company longer than five years. In that person's case the individual didn't question notice before submitting their resignation, simply stated a date a month in the future, and there was no quibble over their notice period.

Does anyone else have experience of this kind of discrepancy? The issue is directly around "your notice entitlement" rather than "the notice period" and so whether I am required to give six weeks. Regardless of the outcome, I am giving six weeks, due to other factors unrelated to contract wording. 

ScionOfFortune

ScionOfFortune said:

...less notice should I leave, and I am if I am asked to leave... 

Sorry, that should have said "than I am if I am asked to leave"

Undervalued

Your default legal entitlement, if they are giving you notice, is one week for each complete year of service up to a maximum of 12 weeks. No contract can reduce that. The only exception is if you are dismissed for gross misconduct when you would not be entitled to any notice at all.

An employee only ever has to give one week's notice to leave, regardless of length of service, unless their contract specifies more. There is no maximum limit that can be agreed between the parties. It can also be a formula depending on length of service. 

There is no legal requirement for notice to be equal either way.

If you fail to give the notice that is contractually agreed you are in breach of contract. Although it is not common an employer could sue for any unavoidable losses they incur if your breach your contract. It does sometimes happen.

Jillanddy

I agree with you.  But is it worth the aggro for two weeks? Maybe it is.  But only you can decide that. 

General_Grant

I don't actually think it is a discrepancy.  I cannot see, from what you have quoted of the contract, that the notice to which the company is entitled from you ever increased beyond the one month.  It seems that it is "your entitlement" which increased (as it had to by law).

Are the extra two weeks a real problem for you?

ScionOfFortune

Thanks @Jillanddy and @General_Grant, if only for confirming that there are others that think the same of the wording. As noted, I am giving six weeks notice at they are demanding. It's the principle of the situation that's sticking like a splinter in my brain. Had they conceded that the contract is badly worded I would have accepted it without issue, but because they're just, effectively, saying "your contract says six weeks" with no other comment, It's rubbing me the wrong way.