Told my employer I was leaving, didn't end well!

[Rude-boy]

Jonsv8 said:

The big bad boss view...

An employee who resigns is showing no support for the business

Really? By giving more notice than they need to do so that the Company and their co-workers (who the big bad Boss with just divvy up the work between causing more resentment and dislocation between management and workforce) shows no support. What an unbelievably closed minded and selfish view.

Jonsv8 said:

Offering to help in the way the op has is to try and leave on good grounds to leave the door open for a return. A return will be judged on past performance not a convoluted exit

So they are doing it for pure selfish reasons with the intent of so your grace might look upon them favourably if they were to seek a return? Really? Wow, just how indispensable to the employee does the employer now try to make it sound as though they are? You do realise that there are some good and principled people out there who aren’t interested in screwing every last thing out of every last person aren’t you? You know people who might be about to make a decision which could have a negative impact on others and who seek to try to soften or reduce that impact, despite being under no legal imperative to do so.

Jonsv8 said:

Employee motivation invariably falls off during notice period.

I will agree that that can be the case, but better a wind down and transfer of responsibilities over a pre planned and agreed timeframe than a sudden stop and all hands to the pump to fill the immediate void, negatively impacting on the output of all staff caught up in it.

Jonsv8 said:

During notice period employee will tell all other employees how fantastic life is going to be once left unsettling staff

st, is it really that bad in your business that your staff are going to take that at 100% face value, even if it is done? Are you sure that they will not have been discussing this with others before? If one man goes it might spur another, but more likely when they see how badly management has handled the exit of a staff member leaving who tried to help that would be more likely to push me than someone else setting up elsewhere. One employer I know is occasionally challenged over decisions by staff, their response is usually “If you would like to go and invest £yMillion in setting up your own XXX company then you are welcome to do whatever you wish. Until then you do it as I tell you to.”

Jonsv8 said:

No employee is bigger than the company (ask clarkson) and its a little patronising to think differently and that extended notice is required to replace them. The notice period is set accordingly as part of the contract. For avoidance of doubt I include myself in this.

And yet your statement above almost contradicts this if one employee is able to destabilise the company? That said I will agree, they are not. That said would you rather a dead leg or a kick in the balls? Neither will kill you but sure as hell the pain and speed of recovery from one is much more acceptable than the other.

Jonsv8 said:

"I am writing to give notice that I shall be leaving XXXXX. I intend to leave on the 30th of June 2015.

Would have been much better served by having a conversation to agree. If you've not got a relationship with management to do that then why have a sense of loyalty.

Firstly I think that the OP should have spoken to their line manager about this if they were determined to cause as little negative impact on the company as they had intended. Theoretical discussions can be very positive when formulating final plans. They might even have been warned not to serve until they had to as it is company policy to drop leavers like a hot stone.

Secondly I think that I have mentioned before in this post that not everyone is solely out for what they can get out of everyone in this life and damn the consequences for others, although it is noticeable how many employers seem to have that attitude.

You will always get good and bad in any workplace. Those that trample the good underfoot by treating all employees as bad ones are the those that remind us why we still need Unions in this day and age. It is poor management to treat all employees as one size fits all.

[Munter]

I'll bet the OP is not coming back to read any of this because:
A)He didn't get the answer he wanted. So determined that people were not reading his question correctly.
B)Too much bhing between other members about x, y and z
C)His time's better spent trying to set up his business, than crying over spilt milk.

[Rude-boy]

jesta1865 said:

i wonder how much him getting married in may and perhaps having a honeymoon booked that they would pay him to go on has made them decide to send him home for a month paid?

They will still owe him for any holiday which has been accrued and is untaken as at the day of termination of employment. Oh and your average honeymoon is likely to be 2 weeks, not 3 months. In any event I would seriously doubt it's more than a month giving two months hand over rather than one.

Irrelevant cheap shot is irrelevant.

[Rude-boy]

Munter said:

I'll bet the OP is not coming back to read any of this because:
A)He didn't get the answer he wanted. So determined that people were not reading his question correctly.

Possibly, but who knows. It wasn't the answer that he wanted but I have to say that whilst he has no legal legs I would still rather an employee like him than one who could not care less about the impact of their actions on a company.

Munter said:

B)Too much bhing between other members about x, y and z

You've not been on here for long have you If there are more than 20% of topics a day that don't turn to debate on a side issue to the main subject I would be very surprised.

Munter said:

C)His time's better spent trying to set up his business, than crying over spilt milk.

It is, but on the other hand 30minutes and a few posts on here over 24 hours or so isn't going to hold him back too much. I doubt that the OP if tied to their computer awaiting our latest pearls of wisdom and sometimes even just having an ineffectual bh can clear the mind much faster than trying to do something whilst festering in doubt and dissatisfaction.

[berlintaxi]

Rude-boy said:

Secondly I think that I have mentioned before in this post that not everyone is solely out for what they can get out of everyone in this life and damn the consequences for others, although it is noticeable how many employers seem to have that attitude.

Seeing as the OP is leaving to set up in competition with his current employer I would say he very much falls into the category of "solely out for what they can get out of everyone and damn the consequences for others".

[LoonR1]

I wonder if anyone fancies writing a note to their employer saying "I am giving notice that I intend to leave on xx/xx/20xx. That date being the day they retire." That would give the company plenty of time to replace you. I doubt many will.

I am still convinced that there is a legal issue here, either the OP is trying to avoid disciplinary processes or is intending on stealing these clients that he has a "previous relationship with"

OP can you clarify whether you are setting up on your own completely or just subbing yourself to a competitor on a preferential tax basis

Edited by LoonR1 on Wednesday 1st April 12:33

[Vaud]

Durzel said:

Given the circumstances presented the employer doesn't have much of a choice but to put them on gardening leave. The OP has admitted to them that he's going self-employed, and will compete in the same field. It doesn't really matter as to the extent or scope of this competition, as there is no way of the company having surety of any assurances given. Having him remain in the office is a huge and unnecessary risk to them. The absolute best case scenario for them is that the OP continues to work at full capacity, but more realistically is likely to be going through the motions for the remaining time, or worse feathering his own nest.

I don't think it's necessarily even a trust issue, it's good prudence. There is no gain for the employer from keeping the OP on for his desired time, and especially not with continued access to sensitive data. The OP was very naive to think that the employer would disregard the fundamental employment contract and risks because of how much perceived goodwill, trustworthiness or whatever existed.

I take your point, I think it is case by case.

There can be upsides even if the employee is going solo. The world is more complex that competitor or ally. It might depend on what relationships are held, for example, industry size, etc. Even at the board level of direct competitors a longer transition can happen [FD of Tesco, when they left M&S was planned to be multi month] and still have ongoing access to sensitive info

[Rude-boy]

berlintaxi said:

Rude-boy said:

Secondly I think that I have mentioned before in this post that not everyone is solely out for what they can get out of everyone in this life and damn the consequences for others, although it is noticeable how many employers seem to have that attitude.

Seeing as the OP is leaving to set up in competition with his current employer I would say he very much falls into the category of "solely out for what they can get out of everyone and damn the consequences for others".

Come one you are not that hard of thinking.

Yes, they are moving on and going self employed - shock horror. But they are also giving the old employer 3 times the required notice to give them time to recruit, replace and train. Those are not the actions of someone who is solely out for what they can get. The latter is the sort that serves notice at 4:55 on the last possible day before going off on holiday for most of their notice.

[LoonR1]

Vaud said:

I take your point, I think it is case by case.

There can be upsides even if the employee is going solo. The world is more complex that competitor or ally. It might depend on what relationships are held, for example, industry size, etc. Even at the board level of direct competitors a longer transition can happen [FD of Tesco, when they left M&S was planned to be multi month] and still have ongoing access to sensitive info

That's multi month because that's the notice period. I've had 3 month periods before. I've either been placed on garden leave if going to a competitor to drag out the time befote I can join, or paid PILON and been free to start the following day. That was great, but highly unlikely nowadays.

Most multi month notices are given restricted access and garden leave usually follows fairly quickly.

[TooMany2cvs]

Rude-boy said:

They will still owe him for any holiday which has been accrued and is untaken as at the day of termination of employment.

If he's got more than a month's worth of accrued holiday entitlement, then - yep - he'll get paid in lieu. If not, then I think he'll find the first two weeks of his "gardening leave" is his holiday entitlement, the rest is extra paid leave which the employer has kindly provided him with.

[anonymous-user]

Jasandjules said:

Hmm, you appear to have given notice. The intent is clear from your email, regardless of your subsequent request to extend that for three months.

You may seek to withdraw your notice, but they do not have to accept from what I can see based upon your notice email.

I'm a chilled out entertainer rather than a boss these days, but people have tried to withdraw notice in the past. It's a PITA as an employer.

If I was the OP I would immediately withdraw saying you did it without recognising the ramifications and trying to get the term 'in haste' in there in a way that makes sense.

[Rude-boy]

LoonR1 said:

I wonder if anyone fancies writing a note to their employer saying "I am giving notice that I intend to leave on xx/xx/20xx. That date being the day they retire." That would give the company plenty of time to replace you. I doubt many will.

Funny you should say that. One of our Solicitors retired last Friday. They told us about 9 months ago so we could plan things properly. There were people with moist eyes at his retirement speech.

I have also told the SP that when my g/f retires (which is a good few years away) I will be taking a 6 month sabbatical.

LoonR1 said:

I am still convinced that there is a legal issue here, either the OP is trying to avoid disciplinary processes or is intending on stealing these clients that he has a "previous relationship with"

OP can you clarify whether you are setting up on your own completely or just subbing yourself to a competitor on a preferential tax basis

You might be right, but somehow I am not sure that you are. Someone who is trying to steal you customers and set up on their own does not give three months notice when they need only give one. They will leave it to the last moment to get the very latest up to date information that they can.

[essayer]

Jasandjules said:

Hmm, you appear to have given notice. The intent is clear from your email, regardless of your subsequent request to extend that for three months.

You may seek to withdraw your notice, but they do not have to accept from what I can see based upon your notice email.

I think the email has scuppered the OP unfortunately.

In hindsight I think it would have been better to have had a chat with the boss and say something like, "I'm thinking of going freelance/studying/taking a career break later in the year, but will stay until July" - then give written notice on the exact day you need to.

But hindsight is how we learn! OP, good luck with your new venture and this is a great excuse to have a month paid to "do research" or whatever you are allowed to do on your notice period

[Rude-boy]

TooMany2cvs said:

Rude-boy said:

They will still owe him for any holiday which has been accrued and is untaken as at the day of termination of employment.

If he's got more than a month's worth of accrued holiday entitlement, then - yep - he'll get paid in lieu. If not, then I think he'll find the first two weeks of his "gardening leave" is his holiday entitlement, the rest is extra paid leave which the employer has kindly provided him with.

Have to say having looked at this you are right under the Working Time Directive - bit of an education for me on that one as I had thought that that was only possible if there was a clause in your contract allowing the employer to dictate when you take your holiday.

[PurpleMoonlight]

I've not read the whole thread so sorry if this had already been stated.

There is nothing to stop an employee giving more than the contractual minimum notice.

The OP appears to have given notice for a date three months hence.

The employer has either sacked him with a months pay in lieu, or is deeming the resignation applies from a month from the email and is paying him that in lieu. Both leave the employer open to an unfair dismissal claim.

[berlintaxi]

Rude-boy said:

berlintaxi said:

Rude-boy said:

Secondly I think that I have mentioned before in this post that not everyone is solely out for what they can get out of everyone in this life and damn the consequences for others, although it is noticeable how many employers seem to have that attitude.

Seeing as the OP is leaving to set up in competition with his current employer I would say he very much falls into the category of "solely out for what they can get out of everyone and damn the consequences for others".

Come one you are not that hard of thinking.

Yes, they are moving on and going self employed - shock horror. But they are also giving the old employer 3 times the required notice to give them time to recruit, replace and train. Those are not the actions of someone who is solely out for what they can get. The latter is the sort that serves notice at 4:55 on the last possible day before going off on holiday for most of their notice.

complete bks and you either know it or are naive.

[Rude-boy]

berlintaxi said:

complete bks and you either know it or are naive.

Okay so you are going to set up in business doing the same thing that your current employer does and are going to rip every last bit of information out of them before going and generally be as disruptive as you can be, do you:-

1) Tell employer at the first opportunity when you are going and offer to help train and so on the replacement. Or

2) leave it until the last minute, knowing that you are highly unlikely to get access to your computer again and then drop it on them.

It is naïve not to prejudge everyone else as a ? If so I am happy to be naïve than the sort who trust no one.

[berlintaxi]

When someone is going into business in competition against you it is naive to trust them, regardless of how they come across.

[Rude-boy]

berlintaxi said:

When someone is going into business in competition against you it is naive to trust them, regardless of how they come across.

Now that is a statement that I can see more weight to

That said perhaps it is naïve to trust them the same as you would have trusted the same employee the day before, but it does seem to me that the company has not taken a holistic view of the situation and worked out that they can use it to their advantage.

Ultimately I think that it does depend on the line of business and the people involved.

My main guide though is that every single person I know who has left one firm to go elsewhere or to set up on their own has always made sure that if there is anything that they shouldn't really have has been obtained well before the letter hits the boss' desk.

[berlintaxi]

Rude-boy said:

My main guide though is that every single person I know who has left one firm to go elsewhere or to set up on their own has always made sure that if there is anything that they shouldn't really have has been obtained well before the letter hits the boss' desk.

Indeed, but that never stops the odd quiet word here and there to customers off the record, hence where you try and get them away from the business as soon as possible.

I think basically we agree, just coming at it from different angles.