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

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

Author
Discussion

Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
berlintaxi said:
I think basically we agree, just coming at it from different angles.beer
biggrinyes

I sort of get the feeling that I am the sort that plays out enough rope to allow others to hang themselves and you would just make sure that they never get enough rope in the first instance smile

Durzel

12,232 posts

167 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
Rude-boy said:
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.
I don't think any of this changes the material facts though.

A company can't really stop someone in a privileged position lifting customer info and bolting out of the door, but they can take steps when made aware that someone in such a position has made the decision to leave, and subsequently compete.

The real problem is that the OP was very naive in anticipating how this "offer" would be taken. It was done with the best of intentions, and under other circumstances a company MAY have welcome the additional time to train someone (one could argue that contractual notice periods should be increased if one month is insufficient), but the circumstances are such that he left the company with no choice.

I don't think you can look at this clinically and say "wouldn't a company welcome advance notice vs none at all", because that isn't really the question being asked here.

I feel a bit sorry for the OP in so much as he was trying to do a good thing, but taking a step back and looking at it from the companies point of view would've made it quite obvious that the correct course of action would've been to work for a further 2 months, and then tender resignation giving the contractual 1 month period. Either way given the compete aspect he would've ended up on gardening leave.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
@Rudeboy. I can't quote your comment on my mobile but 9 months notice of retiring is perfectly acceptable. Most senior roles usually have to give 12 months notice, so nothing unusual there. My comment is will you give 10'years notice?

Jonsv8

7,175 posts

123 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
Rude-boy said:
biggrinyes

I sort of get the feeling that I am the sort that plays out enough rope to allow others to hang themselves and you would just make sure that they never get enough rope in the first instance smile
Shame you keep getting caught up in your own rope.

By leaving he's just cost his employer maybe 50% of his annual salary, maybe more. I have no problem with people leaving, but to suggest he's then doing them a favour unless there was clear precedent or prior discussion is folly. By resigning and irrespective of the competition afterwards, he has voted with his feet with regard to his real commitment to his employer.

I've no doubt the OP intended well, he seems very genuine, but the reality is very different. I find people invariably want to leave on good terms, I've done it myself, but that's doesn't change the fact it's costing his employer a large wedge and payng him an extra 2 months just adds to their costs.



woodyTVR

622 posts

245 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
@Rudeboy. I can't quote your comment on my mobile but 9 months notice of retiring is perfectly acceptable. Most senior roles usually have to give 12 months notice, so nothing unusual there. My comment is will you give 10'years notice?
Yes my company knows I'll be retiring in 26 years time!! They seem fine with it lol

Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
Jonsv8 said:
Shame you keep getting caught up in your own rope.

By leaving he's just cost his employer maybe 50% of his annual salary, maybe more. I have no problem with people leaving, but to suggest he's then doing them a favour unless there was clear precedent or prior discussion is folly. By resigning and irrespective of the competition afterwards, he has voted with his feet with regard to his real commitment to his employer.

I've no doubt the OP intended well, he seems very genuine, but the reality is very different. I find people invariably want to leave on good terms, I've done it myself, but that's doesn't change the fact it's costing his employer a large wedge and payng him an extra 2 months just adds to their costs.
I really don't think that I am getting caught up in my own rope, and I am never one to shy away from admitting when I am wrong smile

Yes he has just cost the company money because they now need to recruit and train. There will be a time lag with this so there might also be lost business. That is a given. Now get over that and look at the fact that he knows all this and so, in an effort to lessen the pain and help the business endure the upset his leaving will cause, he has tried to give them 3 months notice. That is not the work of a slacker or someone who wishes to cruise into their final few months. Hell he could kick back a bit and ease off without anyone really spotting I suspect and in the time frame in play it would take a while for anyone to voice displeasure, let alone start disciplinary. In fact by giving the heads up so early the chances are that they know that they will be watched like a hawk to make sure that they are still pulling their weight.

They are not just paying him for 2 extra months to sit on his arse.

The other act that few seem to have picked up on is that you know that the following day his duties were divvied up between the other staff with the weight falling on them and with a likely negative impact on their usual performance as well as the loss of an employee. This is a scenario entirely created by the management when it could have been dealt with so much better.

Ultimately there are too many variables to provide a hard and fast one size fits all answer to how to deal with this sort of situation. The facts before me here though suggest that if one were to follow the adage that a company gets the employees it deserves, this company did not deserve this employee.





Jonsv8

7,175 posts

123 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
The bit you are missing though is that the employer didn't put him on garden leave because he gave them three months notice but because he resigned. The op could not have misjudged their response worse. He would have been out like this whenever he handed his notice in and with whatever offer he made.

That implies to me there has not been a recent example of someone leaving from a similar role or if there is he either chose to ignore it or if he was treated differently then there is something specific about the op and his employer. Either way, he was at the opposite end of the spectrum to his employer.


Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
Jonsv8 said:
The bit you are missing though is that the employer didn't put him on garden leave because he gave them three months notice but because he resigned. The op could not have misjudged their response worse. He would have been out like this whenever he handed his notice in and with whatever offer he made.

That implies to me there has not been a recent example of someone leaving from a similar role or if there is he either chose to ignore it or if he was treated differently then there is something specific about the op and his employer. Either way, he was at the opposite end of the spectrum to his employer.
You're missing that the OP resigned and gave 3 months notice to the employer, rather than his contractual minimum of 1 month. They put him on gardening leave because they are incapable of seeing the World though anything other than jaundiced eyes.

I will 100% grant you that the OP totally misread the likely response of the company. This implies to me that on the balance of it all the OP is well shot of them smile

I am not a hand wringer by any stretch of the imagination but am a little sick and tired of management who are incapable of differentiating between lead swingers and hard workers, choosing to treat all staff as if they are scum, just in case one of them is.

Again would I have done what the OP did? No way, I would have made sure that all my plans were ready and finances in place and then have had a quite word with someone I trusted in management about the situation and what would be best for both parties. I would then have gone from there, also having it at the back of my mind that I might be a marked man having had that chat.

Jonsv8

7,175 posts

123 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
Rude-boy said:
You're missing that the OP resigned and gave 3 months notice to the employer, rather than his contractual minimum of 1 month. They put him on gardening leave because they are incapable of seeing the World though anything other than jaundiced eyes.

I will 100% grant you that the OP totally misread the likely response of the company. This implies to me that on the balance of it all the OP is well shot of them smile

I am not a hand wringer by any stretch of the imagination but am a little sick and tired of management who are incapable of differentiating between lead swingers and hard workers, choosing to treat all staff as if they are scum, just in case one of them is.

Again would I have done what the OP did? No way, I would have made sure that all my plans were ready and finances in place and then have had a quite word with someone I trusted in management about the situation and what would be best for both parties. I would then have gone from there, also having it at the back of my mind that I might be a marked man having had that chat.
Do you know the OP? If not you've no idea, and neither do I, what he's really like. I've given him the benefit of the doubt but he could be very different and even his ex coworkers are glad to see the back of him we don't know.

I'm working on the facts as presented. You have no reason to doubt the employers response other than it wasn't what the op expected. Many of us feel the op got exactly the response he was due. Does that make the employer wrong?

Muzzer79

9,806 posts

186 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
Hmm intriguing one.

The employee (OP) is telling the employer of his resignation and intended leaving date. He is simply giving more notice than is in the contract.

If the employer wishes to flip this on receipt of that and terminate the OP with one month's notice, then surely they need to either have grounds for

a) dismissal
b) redundancy of the position?

Neither of which have had proper procedures followed.

Does intended resignation count as gross misconduct? If not, then I don't see how the employer can bring forward the resignation date just because the OP has given more notice than is in the contract?

Unless his position is verifiably and contractually untenable?

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
Muzzer79 said:
If not, then I don't see how the employer can bring forward the resignation date just because the OP has given more notice than is in the contract?
They haven't. The date of his resignation is the date of the email.

His actual leaving date is, contractually, one month after that date.
However, he's offered to work for three months - but they don't require him to.
In fact, they don't require him to work during the one month contractual notice period - but they do have to pay him in lieu.

KFC

3,687 posts

129 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
They haven't. The date of his resignation is the date of the email.
Not necessarily. Depending on how its worded or seen as, it could be seen as "I"m going to resign on 15th May with my notice period taking me to 15th June. I'm just giving you this right now so you have advance notice and can plan accordingly".

It might be a bit of a stretch to see it as having resigned today. But then thats why the OP really needs to print off his email, the reply, and go take proper advice.

Jonsv8

7,175 posts

123 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
Muzzer79 said:
Hmm intriguing one.

The employee (OP) is telling the employer of his resignation and intended leaving date. He is simply giving more notice than is in the contract.

If the employer wishes to flip this on receipt of that and terminate the OP with one month's notice, then surely they need to either have grounds for

a) dismissal
b) redundancy of the position?

Neither of which have had proper procedures followed.

Does intended resignation count as gross misconduct? If not, then I don't see how the employer can bring forward the resignation date just because the OP has given more notice than is in the contract?

Unless his position is verifiably and contractually untenable?
You need to read the resignation letter and unfortunately it starts with 'I'm resigning' full stop.

The rest of it including 'I propose to leave on...' and so on are offers which have been rejected.

We all get what he meant, but that's not what he said.

if the employer was happy for him to work his notice I'm sure they may have been more amenable but as they aren't and have put him on garden leave, they've not accepted.

Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
Jonsv8 said:
Do you know the OP? If not you've no idea, and neither do I, what he's really like. I've given him the benefit of the doubt but he could be very different and even his ex coworkers are glad to see the back of him we don't know.

I'm working on the facts as presented. You have no reason to doubt the employers response other than it wasn't what the op expected. Many of us feel the op got exactly the response he was due. Does that make the employer wrong?
I am also working on the facts as presented and a st back stabbing employee does not give their employer 3 months notice when only one is required. An extrapolation that is no more and no less valid in it's veracity than yours which comes from the opposite end of the spectrum.

You, and the others, asserting that the employee got that response that they were due says a lot more about your attitude to and how you might possibly treat your employees than anything else. Cut it how you like, OP tried to do the right thing and got nailed for it. The result being instead of a stable and sensible hand over and agreeable parting of the ways the OP is highly likely to now make it a mission in life to fk over the old co at every opportunity.

We really do need to get away from this workhouse mentality that so many employers have that their employees are 'dust monkeys' and should be eternally grateful for the opportunity of employment with them.

KFC

3,687 posts

129 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
Rude-boy said:
I am also working on the facts as presented and a st back stabbing employee does not give their employer 3 months notice when only one is required. An extrapolation that is no more and no less valid in it's veracity than yours which comes from the opposite end of the spectrum.
You could also work on the assumption that the OP is in fact planning on competing far more than he said he is. And that he also isn't stupid, and has already lifted everything of value before handing his notice in.

That doesn't mean the employer shouldn't start damage limitation. Putting him out the door today prevents him having any access to new clients that walk through the door in the next 1-3 months.

Humper

946 posts

161 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
It may be just me, but I'm reckoning many on here who agree with the employers stance have started successful businesses by stealing customers from previous employers, it's how a lot of small(and not so) businesses start.
For the op not to consider this is beyond naive, sorry.

Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
KFC said:
Rude-boy said:
I am also working on the facts as presented and a st back stabbing employee does not give their employer 3 months notice when only one is required. An extrapolation that is no more and no less valid in it's veracity than yours which comes from the opposite end of the spectrum.
You could also work on the assumption that the OP is in fact planning on competing far more than he said he is. And that he also isn't stupid, and has already lifted everything of value before handing his notice in.

That doesn't mean the employer shouldn't start damage limitation. Putting him out the door today prevents him having any access to new clients that walk through the door in the next 1-3 months.
I can see where you are coming from on this.

If the OP had given 1 month's notice then I would have had them straight out the door. But by giving 3 months notice that might mean that they have already got all that they need but why not take advantage of the situation. Exposure to new clients could be restricted.

Ultimately though we just don't know. I just find it sad that so many look only for the bad, especially when the OP WAS doing them a favour, regardless of how some of the hardarses might look at it.

9mm

3,128 posts

209 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
Humper said:
It may be just me, but I'm reckoning many on here who agree with the employers stance have started successful businesses by stealing customers from previous employers, it's how a lot of small(and not so) businesses start.
For the op not to consider this is beyond naive, sorry.
I'm not sure a customer can ever belong to anyone, unless they are tied in by contract.

Anyone starting a business has to believe there's a market and the existence of people in that field is obviously good evidence that there is. Next, you want customers, of which there is often a finite amount.

The customers are fair game. An employer may wish to stop ex-employees doing business with 'their' customers but it's very hard to do. IME most threats are empty and would fall foul of restraint of trade legislation. Things like taking the Coca Cola recipe are a bit different but if you write for a motoring magazine and leave to set up your own, that's life.

Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
Humper said:
It may be just me, but I'm reckoning many on here who agree with the employers stance have started successful businesses by stealing customers from previous employers, it's how a lot of small(and not so) businesses start.
For the op not to consider this is beyond naive, sorry.
Nope, that's not just you at all. Even the pig of the thread (me today) agrees that the OP has shown spectacular naivety in their actions. We all have to learn sometime though.

It's just that when you are offered the choice between 'lose now and have no one to fill the gap and all the st that falls with that' and 'keep on, restrict access but have a structured hand over' I know which I will go for.

As said the OP will have lifted all that they need before they sent that e-mail, if anything. If they didn't then perhaps they do need shooting however hehe

And Clients are like women. If you can't keep them, you do deserve them or they were wrong for you anyway.

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
KFC said:
TooMany2cvs said:
They haven't. The date of his resignation is the date of the email.
Not necessarily. Depending on how its worded or seen as, it could be seen as "I"m going to resign on 15th May with my notice period taking me to 15th June. I'm just giving you this right now so you have advance notice and can plan accordingly".

It might be a bit of a stretch to see it as having resigned today. But then thats why the OP really needs to print off his email, the reply, and go take proper advice.
Back to page 6 of this thread...

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

I’m aware that I would only need to give one month and not three but I thought I would let those concerned know now so it gives time to find and help train a replacement.

Please let me know if a written notice is required now or 1 month before I intend to leave.

Thank you.

Craig"
He is giving notice that he's leaving. Full stop. He intends to leave in three months time. New para.
He is aware that he only needs give one month's notice...

The rest is fluff. The intent is appreciated but not required. Here's a month's pay, we'll save you having to do any ironing.