Notice period - confused

Sandtree

Jillanddy said:

Sandtree said:

Jillanddy said:

getmore4less said:

Bet there are people out there with 6 month, 9month, 1 year+ notice periods in their contracts.

What length does it become an unfair term?

I think most courts would find a one year contract with one year notice pretty unfair! The OP would have to be someone very critical to make that remotely fair. 

Its less about being very critical and more about being involved in very sensitive pieces of work (eg mergers & acquisitions, strategy and at a push new product development).  By virtue of being involved in these you are typically going to be middle management/high level technical type person but normally the company will operate fine without you but they dont want you going to the competitor who's counter bidding to buy the same 3rd company.

When the resignation comes in you are on garden leave as fast as a handover can be done and left to have your insider knowledge degrade. 

You also have to remember that long notice periods are generally seen as a good thing, which is why the government sets a minimum notice period rather than a maximum. I've only known one person that had a 12 month notice period and he sacrificed his discretionary bonus by refusing to sign new T&Cs that would have reduced it to 3 months as he was angling for redundancy in which case the 12 months notice would be paid in lieu. 

Jillanddy said:
But there is absolutely nothing to prevent the OP from going off sick with stress related to this job, then going off and getting another job at the same time - fit notes don't have to prevent you from doing any work, just the work that is causing the medical condition. Perfectly legal

Only perfectly legal if:

1) They do actually have an illness caused by work

2) They can get their doctor to give a partial fit note, their current contract doesnt prohibit a second job and their new employer are comfortable accepting them in work whilst under a partial fit note -  there is a risk to their Employers Liability insurance if they allow an employee who isnt fit for work to continue on

Unless the OP is going for a totally different career its a bit hard to see how an employer could get themselves comfortable that "office job A" is causing them stress but there is no risk of "office job B" causing the same issue if stress is the listed reason on a partial fit note.

But it is supposition that the OP is involved in anything sensitive,  critical or anything else. What is effectively a 12 month notice period in a 12 month contract is completely ridiculous and very unlikely,Ely to be held to be ac fair contract term.  And since the OP had made it clear already that the job is causing them ill health then that point is already made.  But since we have no idea what is causing that stress,  then there is no evidence at all that they couldn't do the same role in another company - perhaps,  for example,  one that has better management or resources? 

Regardless of anything else,  it's a stupid employer who attempts to force someone to work when they are unhappy and being made ill by the work environment. So if they want to pay them for 12 months for nothing productive, then I'd let them.  But then,  if someone is so business critical, I souks expect them to be looking for free advice on MSE.

I think we had moved far from talking about the OP explicitly and talking in more general terms given the OP has stated they have a 3 month notice period but the post I was responding to was questioning 12 month notice periods. 

Can you point to any case law about a long notice period being considered an unfair contract term? As previously mentioned long notice periods are generally considered a positive thing as it gives the employee more protection. A superficial google only threw up cases involving asymmetrical notice periods against the employee.

Is it sensible to retain any employee who doesnt want to be there is a separate question.