UKC

Question about employment notice periods

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 danj1974 24 Sep 2015
Hi folks,

I have a quick question about notice periods. Is it common for an employee to have to give a longer notice period than that which the employer has to give them?

So, for example, the employer has to give 1 week notice for each year of service (capped at 12 weeks), whereas the employee has to give 1 month notice. Is this unusual? From my own experience it's either been equal, or the employer has had to give a longer period of notice.

Many thanks,
Dan
 Pedro50 24 Sep 2015
In reply to danj1974:

I think that the notice that you have to give them will be stated in your original contract of employment - typically one month. If they wish to give you notice of redundancy they will need to give you one week per year of service (or one and a half weeks if you are over 50). Does that make sense? I am not an expert but have been made redundant twice.
Removed User 24 Sep 2015
In reply to danj1974:

I've got this in my contract.

I have to give 4 weeks notice for the first 4 years and then an extra week per year of service, which is indeed capped at 12 weeks. That goes both ways though, they gotta give me 12 weeks notice if I stay 12 years.
 Offwidth 24 Sep 2015
In reply to danj1974:

It's very common. The really long ones are difficult to enforce if people just leave but its better to try and find a mutually suitable departure date first.
 climbwhenready 24 Sep 2015
In reply to danj1974:

Normally equal or employer has to give longer I think.

I believe the 1 week per year is a statutory minimum.

For me it's 12 weeks both ways (HE sector so pretty cushy contracts)
 The New NickB 24 Sep 2015
In reply to Pedro50:

That's the redundancy payment not the notice period and 1.5 weeks per year worked kicks in at 41 not 50.

Notice periods are contractual and usually equal between employee and employer.
 TMM 24 Sep 2015
In reply to danj1974:

My employer tried this last year. They wanted three months notice from me but only one moth from themselves. I decided not to sign and amended it to three months for both parties.
 Scarab9 24 Sep 2015
In reply to danj1974:

Worth noting that regardless of what's in your contract you have some protection. The employers notice must match the statutory requirements.
Your notice can be deemed unfair if it makes it difficult for you to pursue a.living. So three months can be deemed unfair unless you're highly important to the company. So a grunt will.rarely have to serve 3months even if it's.in the contract, but a manager might have to.
Same with conditions about where you work afterwards. "not for any clients or competitors" can in some cases rule out most of the industry you're in so is deemed unfair is many circumstances.
mgco3 24 Sep 2015
In reply to danj1974:

It should be clearly laid out in your contract that you will have signed when you started work.

The employer must give the same notice period that the employee is expected to give.

You are under no obligation to inform the employer who your next employer will be. This can be used in your favour to negotiate a shorter exit date from your employment. No employer in their right mind will want to keep a person who is potentially moving to a rival company at their premises where the employee could potentially "poach" business for their next employer.
OP danj1974 24 Sep 2015
In reply to danj1974:

Thanks for the replies. The statutory requirements are easy enough to look up (and are indeed being adhered to in this instance), so the crux of my question was about the disparity between the notice periods at the beginning of the contract period.

I have no problem with the employee giving 1 month notice, that's perfectly reasonable in my book, but it does strike me as unfair that the company would only need to give the employee 1 week's notice if they've worked for < 2 years and that it takes 4 years of service until things are evened out.

It's interesting to see quite a few posters confirm that in their experience there is usually equality on both sides of the relationship. To clarify the situation, the example given is a new contract with a new company, so I'm interested in whether it could/should be made a point of negotiation.

Cheers,
Dan
 ByEek 24 Sep 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

> It's very common. The really long ones are difficult to enforce if people just leave but its better to try and find a mutually suitable departure date first.

Agreed.

When I was contracting last year employer had to give one week but I would have had to give 4 weeks which is a tad unfair.
 Philip 24 Sep 2015
In reply to ByEek:

And in many cases it counts for nothing. I had someone walk out with 5 days notice (not the month in their contract) to give up a lab manager job to become a police officer. Nothing I could do - you can't *make* them stay and if their new employer doesn't care.
 Billhook 24 Sep 2015
In reply to Scarab9:

You cannot enforce an employee to work their notice.
 Billhook 24 Sep 2015
In reply to mgco3:
There is no legal requirement for employer/employee. Notice to match. It is a contractual matter except the employer is required to give a required statutory minimum.
Post edited at 23:05
 Roadrunner5 25 Sep 2015
In reply to danj1974:

I'm going through this now. I handed in my notice, I gave a month. They say its 60 days. But I was never given a contract to sign.
 Billhook 25 Sep 2015
In reply to danj1974:

It is quite common to ask employees to work a longer notice period than the employer is prepared to give. This is especially so where personnel are harder to replace or need a skill which takes a long time to get up and running in the workplace.

Excepting statutory notice from the employer notice periods are entirely contractual. As with all contracts, written or not, by turning up to work the law deems you to have agreed to the terms of a contract. There is no such thing in employment law terms as 'working under protest'.

But there is a twist entirely in favour of the employee:_

If the employer does not give the right contractual notice and/or pay, the employee can eventually take the employer to a tribunal. Here the matter will be decided and if found in favour of the employee, the ex employer will have to pay up.

BUT:-

If the employee does not give the right contractual notice and simply walks out there is little the ex employer can do. Why? For the simple reason that you cannot under law enforce or make an employee work when they have decided they no longer wish to be bound by a contract of employment.

A common belief is that an employer can alternatively, sue for loss or breach of contract (in the same way the employee can). This is true but impractical for an employer.

a) The employer would have to show a financial loss directly as a result of the employee leaving without giving the required notice. Unless you are the sole salesman in a small business this would be hard to do!!

b) The employer would have to demonstrate that they attempted to mitigate their loss (by immediately attempting to recruit a replacement, appointing a substitute from existing staff and so on).

c) Even if the employer could show a loss directly as a result of the employee leaving a court would offset this against what would of happened had the employee given the correct notice. So if the employee was supposed to have given six weeks notice but left after one week, and the employer lost an attributable £3000 the court would decide how much the company would have lost in any case by the employee the correct notice and offset this against the £3000.

d) The final practical hurdle for the employer is then attempting to get any money from an employee who may not have it, and of course the costs associated with going to court and so on.

I have never, ever, heard of an employer succeeding in taking this kind of action against an ex employee, although I would suggest leaving without the correct notice may not get you a very glowing reference.!!
 BnB 25 Sep 2015
In reply to Dave Perry:

I'm an employment specialist and this ^^^^ is an accurate and exhaustive response which I could not better. OP your question is answered.

OP danj1974 25 Sep 2015
In reply to Dave Perry:

Thanks for the comprehensive answer Dave. The first paragraph is the most helpful for me - confirming that the situation I've described isn't necessarily all that uncommon. As I said, I think the employee notice period of 1 month is perfectly reasonable in itself.

Cheers,
Dan
 Billhook 25 Sep 2015
In reply to danj1974:
You're welcome!

 Billhook 25 Sep 2015
In reply to BnB:

Thanks, needless to say I had a similar background!

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...