Current employer has refused my advised leaving date in my notice

Thrugelmir

Jillanddy said:

Thrugelmir said:

theoretica said:

Thrugelmir said:

pinkshoes said:

Gray134 said:

The company have now sent me an email saying my contract terms of not less than 1 month mean they only need a months notice so I will be leaving on the 31st of October  and only be paid to the 31st.  

Well that's very nice of them (not), but they can't actually do that if you have been there 4 years.

Employers are only obilged to give one weeks notice per year of service. Need to be 5 years or more to give more. Employer is correct in this instance. 

But if you have worked there for more than 2 years they should not give notice without a reason.

The employee is resigning though in this instance and the employer has accepted. On the employers part 4 weeks is sufficient notice to terminate the employment.   

But that isn't what the law says. The employer can't give "counternotice". Giving more notice than required isn't a crime - although it often unwise. So the employer isn't in a position to reduce the notice period to less because that's what they want. Of course, they are in a position to make life miserable for an employee....

It isn't counternotice though. The employees contractual notice period is 4 weeks. Employees don't have a contractual right to leave the employment when it suits them. The employee has handed in their notice and the employer would like them to leave. 

thebrexitunicorn

Thrugelmir said:

Jillanddy said:

Thrugelmir said:

theoretica said:

Thrugelmir said:

pinkshoes said:

Gray134 said:

The company have now sent me an email saying my contract terms of not less than 1 month mean they only need a months notice so I will be leaving on the 31st of October  and only be paid to the 31st.  

Well that's very nice of them (not), but they can't actually do that if you have been there 4 years.

Employers are only obilged to give one weeks notice per year of service. Need to be 5 years or more to give more. Employer is correct in this instance. 

But if you have worked there for more than 2 years they should not give notice without a reason.

The employee is resigning though in this instance and the employer has accepted. On the employers part 4 weeks is sufficient notice to terminate the employment.   

But that isn't what the law says. The employer can't give "counternotice". Giving more notice than required isn't a crime - although it often unwise. So the employer isn't in a position to reduce the notice period to less because that's what they want. Of course, they are in a position to make life miserable for an employee....

It isn't counternotice though. The employees contractual notice period is 4 weeks. Employees don't have a contractual right to leave the employment when it suits them. The employee has handed in their notice and the employer would like them to leave. 

The contractual notice is a minimum of 4 weeks.  The employee gave a leaving date and the employer has now served notice to terminate the employment. This is a now a dismissal.  As the reason for termination appears to be that the employee gave notice the dismissal is unlikely to be fair.  

I agree with the poster who suggested negotiating a financial agreement (I would also want an agreed reference) if the employer wants the employment terminated early.  They should be paying salary until 2nd January, and any other benefits.  Usually in this situation if the employee isn’t wanted at work they would be put on gardening leave.  

k12479

thebrexitunicorn said:

Thrugelmir said:

Jillanddy said:

Thrugelmir said:

theoretica said:

Thrugelmir said:

pinkshoes said:

Gray134 said:

The company have now sent me an email saying my contract terms of not less than 1 month mean they only need a months notice so I will be leaving on the 31st of October  and only be paid to the 31st.  

Well that's very nice of them (not), but they can't actually do that if you have been there 4 years.

Employers are only obilged to give one weeks notice per year of service. Need to be 5 years or more to give more. Employer is correct in this instance. 

But if you have worked there for more than 2 years they should not give notice without a reason.

The employee is resigning though in this instance and the employer has accepted. On the employers part 4 weeks is sufficient notice to terminate the employment.   

But that isn't what the law says. The employer can't give "counternotice". Giving more notice than required isn't a crime - although it often unwise. So the employer isn't in a position to reduce the notice period to less because that's what they want. Of course, they are in a position to make life miserable for an employee....

It isn't counternotice though. The employees contractual notice period is 4 weeks. Employees don't have a contractual right to leave the employment when it suits them. The employee has handed in their notice and the employer would like them to leave. 

The contractual notice is a minimum of 4 weeks.  The employee gave a leaving date and the employer has now served notice to terminate the employment. This is a now a dismissal.  As the reason for termination appears to be that the employee gave notice the dismissal is unlikely to be fair.  

Is it dismissal, though?

I would say it sounds pretty straightforward:
Employee gives resignation, attempts to negotiate extended notice period.
Employer accepts resignation, rejects request for extended notice period.

AnnieB2018

 

Is it dismissal, though?

I would say it sounds pretty straightforward:
Employee gives resignation, attempts to negotiate extended notice period.
Employer accepts resignation, rejects request for extended notice period.

For what it’s worth, I think it’s this. You have given up your cards to negotiate more money/ notice/seat at the Christmas party table by saying you are leaving anyway. You could have started with a conversation about possibly looking to move on, how would the employer feel about 3 months informal notice to assist handover etc etc and that may have landed you in this exact spot anyways.

Jillanddy

Thrugelmir said:

Jillanddy said:

Thrugelmir said:

theoretica said:

Thrugelmir said:

pinkshoes said:

Gray134 said:

The company have now sent me an email saying my contract terms of not less than 1 month mean they only need a months notice so I will be leaving on the 31st of October  and only be paid to the 31st.  

Well that's very nice of them (not), but they can't actually do that if you have been there 4 years.

Employers are only obilged to give one weeks notice per year of service. Need to be 5 years or more to give more. Employer is correct in this instance. 

But if you have worked there for more than 2 years they should not give notice without a reason.

The employee is resigning though in this instance and the employer has accepted. On the employers part 4 weeks is sufficient notice to terminate the employment.   

But that isn't what the law says. The employer can't give "counternotice". Giving more notice than required isn't a crime - although it often unwise. So the employer isn't in a position to reduce the notice period to less because that's what they want. Of course, they are in a position to make life miserable for an employee....

It isn't counternotice though. The employees contractual notice period is 4 weeks. Employees don't have a contractual right to leave the employment when it suits them. The employee has handed in their notice and the employer would like them to leave. 

I don't agree. It is dismissal. The employer might "like them to leave", but they cannot force them to leave on a specified date without dismissing them. Employees actually do have the right to leave employment when it suits them providing they provide at least the minimum amount of notice. That is why is is called employment and not slavery. Employers don't have a right to tell employees when they will leave their employment at all - unless they dismiss them. And dismissal is actionable. None of the categories for fair dismissal reads "because they gave us more notice than they needed to". As I said previously, it might be an interesting case to test, but it is fairly clear that this is a dismissal.

Undervalued

Jillanddy said:

Thrugelmir said:

Jillanddy said:

Thrugelmir said:

theoretica said:

Thrugelmir said:

pinkshoes said:

Gray134 said:

The company have now sent me an email saying my contract terms of not less than 1 month mean they only need a months notice so I will be leaving on the 31st of October  and only be paid to the 31st.  

Well that's very nice of them (not), but they can't actually do that if you have been there 4 years.

Employers are only obilged to give one weeks notice per year of service. Need to be 5 years or more to give more. Employer is correct in this instance. 

But if you have worked there for more than 2 years they should not give notice without a reason.

The employee is resigning though in this instance and the employer has accepted. On the employers part 4 weeks is sufficient notice to terminate the employment.   

But that isn't what the law says. The employer can't give "counternotice". Giving more notice than required isn't a crime - although it often unwise. So the employer isn't in a position to reduce the notice period to less because that's what they want. Of course, they are in a position to make life miserable for an employee....

It isn't counternotice though. The employees contractual notice period is 4 weeks. Employees don't have a contractual right to leave the employment when it suits them. The employee has handed in their notice and the employer would like them to leave. 

I don't agree. It is dismissal. The employer might "like them to leave", but they cannot force them to leave on a specified date without dismissing them. Employees actually do have the right to leave employment when it suits them providing they provide at least the minimum amount of notice. That is why is is called employment and not slavery. Employers don't have a right to tell employees when they will leave their employment at all - unless they dismiss them. And dismissal is actionable. None of the categories for fair dismissal reads "because they gave us more notice than they needed to". As I said previously, it might be an interesting case to test, but it is fairly clear that this is a dismissal.

As I said in my earlier post I agree that what the employer has done here is dismissal. 

However I remains my opinion that the maximum a claim for either unfair or wrongful dismissal would yield is their salary until the date on which the employee intended to leave. It is possible it may not even yield that much as, in any claim for compensation, the claimant has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to minimise their losses. In this case the employee has another job to go to and can apparently start sooner.

The only exception I see to that is regarding the bonus. If (big if) there is a contractual entitlement to the bonus, assuming certain conditions have been met, and the only reason they did not receive it is because the employer forced them to leave earlier they might have some claim here.

Jillanddy

Undervalued said:

Jillanddy said:

Thrugelmir said:

Jillanddy said:

Thrugelmir said:

theoretica said:

Thrugelmir said:

pinkshoes said:

Gray134 said:

The company have now sent me an email saying my contract terms of not less than 1 month mean they only need a months notice so I will be leaving on the 31st of October  and only be paid to the 31st.  

Well that's very nice of them (not), but they can't actually do that if you have been there 4 years.

Employers are only obilged to give one weeks notice per year of service. Need to be 5 years or more to give more. Employer is correct in this instance. 

But if you have worked there for more than 2 years they should not give notice without a reason.

The employee is resigning though in this instance and the employer has accepted. On the employers part 4 weeks is sufficient notice to terminate the employment.   

But that isn't what the law says. The employer can't give "counternotice". Giving more notice than required isn't a crime - although it often unwise. So the employer isn't in a position to reduce the notice period to less because that's what they want. Of course, they are in a position to make life miserable for an employee....

It isn't counternotice though. The employees contractual notice period is 4 weeks. Employees don't have a contractual right to leave the employment when it suits them. The employee has handed in their notice and the employer would like them to leave. 

I don't agree. It is dismissal. The employer might "like them to leave", but they cannot force them to leave on a specified date without dismissing them. Employees actually do have the right to leave employment when it suits them providing they provide at least the minimum amount of notice. That is why is is called employment and not slavery. Employers don't have a right to tell employees when they will leave their employment at all - unless they dismiss them. And dismissal is actionable. None of the categories for fair dismissal reads "because they gave us more notice than they needed to". As I said previously, it might be an interesting case to test, but it is fairly clear that this is a dismissal.

As I said in my earlier post I agree that what the employer has done here is dismissal. 

However I remains my opinion that the maximum a claim for either unfair or wrongful dismissal would yield is their salary until the date on which the employee intended to leave. It is possible it may not even yield that much as, in any claim for compensation, the claimant has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to minimise their losses. In this case the employee has another job to go to and can apparently start sooner.

The only exception I see to that is regarding the bonus. If (big if) there is a contractual entitlement to the bonus, assuming certain conditions have been met, and the only reason they did not receive it is because the employer forced them to leave earlier they might have some claim here.

Oh I totally agree. As I said earlier, I wouldn't have done it and I wouldn't have advised someone to do it! What I am disputing is people confidently informing the OP that the employer has a right to dismiss them. If someone has more than 2 years service an employers right to dismiss is curtailed by law, and "convenience" isn't one of the entitlements. So the OP can:
(a) Sit it out and insist of their resignation date, and if the employer becomes awkward that is the price they pay, or
(b) Agree to a date with the employer and start early in the other job if the new employer is happy with that, or
(c) Get dismissed and either do nothing about it, or take them to a tribunal anyway because it costs them nothing and they are likely to get something, even if not much - but it teaches the employer not to be that daft again hopefully.

Like I said, I wouldn't be in this situation in the first place, but if I was dismissed on such grounds I would definitely make a case of it. But that's my character - I'd never back down. But equally, I guess it might make a huge difference if that bonus is contractual / payable even if someone has resigned. I'm not altruistic enough to forego £10k if it were on offer!

theoretica

k12479 said:

thebrexitunicorn said:

Thrugelmir said:

Jillanddy said:

Thrugelmir said:

theoretica said:

Thrugelmir said:

pinkshoes said:

Gray134 said:

The company have now sent me an email saying my contract terms of not less than 1 month mean they only need a months notice so I will be leaving on the 31st of October  and only be paid to the 31st.  

Well that's very nice of them (not), but they can't actually do that if you have been there 4 years.

Employers are only obilged to give one weeks notice per year of service. Need to be 5 years or more to give more. Employer is correct in this instance. 

But if you have worked there for more than 2 years they should not give notice without a reason.

The employee is resigning though in this instance and the employer has accepted. On the employers part 4 weeks is sufficient notice to terminate the employment.   

But that isn't what the law says. The employer can't give "counternotice". Giving more notice than required isn't a crime - although it often unwise. So the employer isn't in a position to reduce the notice period to less because that's what they want. Of course, they are in a position to make life miserable for an employee....

It isn't counternotice though. The employees contractual notice period is 4 weeks. Employees don't have a contractual right to leave the employment when it suits them. The employee has handed in their notice and the employer would like them to leave. 

The contractual notice is a minimum of 4 weeks.  The employee gave a leaving date and the employer has now served notice to terminate the employment. This is a now a dismissal.  As the reason for termination appears to be that the employee gave notice the dismissal is unlikely to be fair.  

Is it dismissal, though?

I would say it sounds pretty straightforward:
Employee gives resignation, attempts to negotiate extended notice period.
Employer accepts resignation, rejects request for extended notice period.

That depends on if you can pick and choose some of the terms in a contract/resignation and not others.  I don't think you can and that (resignation to leave on the 2nd January) is not two separate items but one.

I have a colleague who is clear when she is retiring.  Years notice that she is resigning.  This does not mean the employer can get rid of her at any point 'because she gave notice she was retiring'.

thebrexitunicorn

k12479 said:

thebrexitunicorn said:

Thrugelmir said:

Jillanddy said:

Thrugelmir said:

theoretica said:

Thrugelmir said:

pinkshoes said:

Gray134 said:

The company have now sent me an email saying my contract terms of not less than 1 month mean they only need a months notice so I will be leaving on the 31st of October  and only be paid to the 31st.  

Well that's very nice of them (not), but they can't actually do that if you have been there 4 years.

Employers are only obilged to give one weeks notice per year of service. Need to be 5 years or more to give more. Employer is correct in this instance. 

But if you have worked there for more than 2 years they should not give notice without a reason.

The employee is resigning though in this instance and the employer has accepted. On the employers part 4 weeks is sufficient notice to terminate the employment.   

But that isn't what the law says. The employer can't give "counternotice". Giving more notice than required isn't a crime - although it often unwise. So the employer isn't in a position to reduce the notice period to less because that's what they want. Of course, they are in a position to make life miserable for an employee....

It isn't counternotice though. The employees contractual notice period is 4 weeks. Employees don't have a contractual right to leave the employment when it suits them. The employee has handed in their notice and the employer would like them to leave. 

The contractual notice is a minimum of 4 weeks.  The employee gave a leaving date and the employer has now served notice to terminate the employment. This is a now a dismissal.  As the reason for termination appears to be that the employee gave notice the dismissal is unlikely to be fair.  

Is it dismissal, though?

I would say it sounds pretty straightforward:
Employee gives resignation, attempts to negotiate extended notice period.
Employer accepts resignation, rejects request for extended notice period.

Yes, it is a dismissal.  

kimwp

By your contract, what notice is your employer required to give?