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

[9mm]

Post EXACTLY what you wrote to your employer, word for word.

[CraigJ]

9mm said:

Post EXACTLY what you wrote to your employer, word for word.

I'm waitng for the email to be sent back to me. I was locked out of my work laptop so was unable to take a copy today. Once it is forwarded to me i will post the email.

[Derek Smith]

belly2002 said:

OP, you're getting lots of responses saying take it on the chin and learn from it'. Decide for yourself whether you want to listen.

You've also got quite a few 'they've paid you your notice period so they've done nothing wrong legally'. That's bad advice.

By putting you on garden leave rather than allowing you to work the one months notice then technically they may be in breach of contract if your contract with them does not include provisions to allow for it. If so you could potentially claim for wrongful dismissal (just the employment law terminology for a breach of contract claim). But if it's an organisation big enough to have an HR department, chances are your contract will include probably include the relevant provisions and in any case it's not usually worth pursuing becasue you wouldn't have been any better off had they performed the contract properly, so have no loss to claim for.

However, just because it's not wrongful dismissal doesn't mean it's not unfair dismissal. That's a statutory claim where the employer can be liable to pay compensation calculated by a formula if the reason for dismissal wasn't 'fair' (in a legal sense, not a moral one). Precious few facts to go on here, so have a read up on it online and get some advice if you think you might there might be milage in a claim. I'd imagine the CAB would be able to give you some advice as a good first step.

Talking of CAB, there's a reasonable explanation of a lot of it here (including the formula for calculating the award: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/work_w/work_wo...

Good luck

This.

OP: There are few employers who give a damn, and it has to be said that there are few employees that would have been as thoughtful as you. From what you have quoted, it seems as if you have a claim. As you've got a couple of months with nothing to do, look into the legal side and ask them what they are going to do about it. If you have a claim of, say, 6k then remember that it can be costly in both time and money to take legal action, that's what such companies often depend on, so they'll offer less and you will have to make a decision whether or not to accept.

I had a claim against my employer and went to see a lawyer. Lovely chap. His advice, which cost him money, was that I had an excellent claim for damages but he advised me against going to court. Excellent advice, which I'm relieved I followed. Others, who pursued such matters, some who also had good claims, were put to lots of aggravation and in the end got very little once the lawyers took their cut.

If you are after the money then the civil courts are set up to get the money to lawyers, not you, so accept that you won't get much. If you want to proceed on a matter of principle, then that is the one time when the advice is always to let it go. Don't even try to get back at them.

[CraigJ]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Just the 2 months pay I would have earned. nothing more, nothing less.

[KFC]

As an employer with zero legal training, I'd assume the following

• you're lying as to the extent you're going to compete with me
• you're going to use the next couple of months to at best do nothing of value, and at worst actively harm me (by copying files, telling customers you're going self employed etc)
• its in my interests to have you escorted from the building, immediately
• best case is it costs me a months salary. Worst case is it costs me your salary till the date you were going to leave. Either is fine, they're value for money.

[belly2002]

LoonR1 said:

Out of interest what do you think the outcome would be if his contract fpdidnt allow for him to be placed on garden leave? Bearing in mind that he has been paid. That's the only question I'm asking, put all the other stuff to one side and just focus on that specific question.

I'm no expert in the finer points of employment law but a quick scan of my employment law textbook reminds me that it can be a complicated question as to whether or not there has actually been a breach (i.e. a wrongful dismissal). Whether or not the employee is deemed to have waived the requirement for notice by accepting the payment will be relevant to answering that question.

As to the outcome, in simple cases, and as I said above, the question is likely to be largely academic because in financial terms, the employee has suffered no loss. If the contract had been performed properly (i.e. notice had been given rather than the payment in lieu) then they'd have received the same amount of money. And claims for nominal damages aren't usually a good idea. I'm guessing that's what you might be getting at.

It's not always academic though. If there has been a wrongful dismissal, then restrictive covenants in the contract (e.g. in regard to competing with the employer) cease to be enforceable. General Billposting Company Ltd v Atkinson [1909] AC 118 established the principle.

It's the usual thing on the t'interweb though, there's precious little to go on in terms of the facts of the individual situation so the only thing anyone can really do is point out the relevant areas to have a look into and recommend getting some proper advice if he thinks it might be helpful!

Edited by belly2002 on Tuesday 31st March 21:37

[anonymous-user]

What does your contract say about giving notice?

You don't usually contractually have the right to determine your own leaving date (minimum notice period excepted), that's something you would want to negotiate separately beforehand.

I'm surprised they're giving you notice of dismissal. I would expect that now you've given notice it's then down to the company to set your leaving date. They can't force you to work longer than your minimum notice period but I don't see how they can be compelled to retain or pay you for longer than that minimum notice period either.

[LoonR1]

belly2002 said:

LoonR1 said:

Out of interest what do you think the outcome would be if his contract fpdidnt allow for him to be placed on garden leave? Bearing in mind that he has been paid. That's the only question I'm asking, put all the other stuff to one side and just focus on that specific question.

I'm no expert in the finer points of employment law but a quick scan of my employment law textbook reminds me that it can be a complicated question as to whether or not there has actually been a breach (i.e. a wrongful dismissal). Whether or not the employee is deemed to have waived the requirement for notice by accepting the payment will be relevant to answering that question.

As to the outcome, in simple cases, and as I said above, the question is likely to be largely academic because in financial terms, the employee has suffered no loss. If the contract had been performed properly (i.e. notice had been given rather than the payment in lieu) then they'd have received the same amount of money. And claims for nominal damages aren't usually a good idea. I'm guessing that's what you might be getting at.

It's not always academic though. If there has been a wrongful dismissal, then restrictive covenants in the contract (e.g. in regard to competing with the employer) cease to be enforceable. General Billposting Company Ltd v Atkinson [1909] AC 118 established the principle.

It's the usual thing on the t'interweb though, there's precious little to go on in terms of the facts of the individual situation so the only thing anyone can really do is point out the relevant areas to have a look into and recommend getting some proper advice if he thinks it might be helpful!

Edited by belly2002 on Tuesday 31st March 21:37

That was my point, I can't see what the loss is if he's paid for the month.

[Camlet]

CraigJ said:

Mermaid said:

prevent any risk to them.

This bit I do find funny as it was said to me today by my manager. I'm not sure what risk me on my own will pose to a wolrdwide multi-billion Euro company .

There's your problem. You work for a "multi-billion Euro company". You gave your manager a huge problem the moment you told them your plan. These huge companies don't allow people to change the rules. The manager had three options. First, say nothing and expect you to buy them a pint. Second, ask their senior manager or HR for advice in how to deal with you. Third, think "sorry mate, nothing personal but option 1 will probably get me fired, or sent to Siberia. Option 2 will make me seem weak and probably leave me exposed. So I'll go for the safest route, cheerio!" You meant the right thing but your honesty forced your manager to act, or face a problem. Moral of the story, always put your feet in the shoes of the person you're going to transact with - to see the situation from their side - before you act. Good luck.

[Humper]

KFC said:

As an employer with zero legal training, I'd assume the following

• you're lying as to the extent you're going to compete with me
• you're going to use the next couple of months to at best do nothing of value, and at worst actively harm me (by copying files, telling customers you're going self employed etc)
• its in my interests to have you escorted from the building, immediately
• best case is it costs me a months salary. Worst case is it costs me your salary till the date you were going to leave. Either is fine, they're value for money.

This ^^^^^^^^^
And if you thought otherwise your industry must differ greatly from mine's too.

[Sheepshanks]

Mermaid said:

They could have sacked you at any stage and provide one month's notice.

Do you mean at any stage of his notice, or any stage of his employment?

He'd been there more than 2yrs so should have some protection, although, I don't know, perhaps saying he was leaving renders that null and void?

[belly2002]

LoonR1 said:

That was my point, I can't see what the loss is if he's paid for the month.

Yes, did guess.

But I was just focusing on the wrongful dismissal part of things there, I think I misunderstood your question a little bit.

Even if there's no claim for wrongful dismissal (or at least for any damages for it) it does not prevent a claim for unfair dismissal. On what we've got here, OP should be looking into that.

[belly2002]

belly2002 said:

LoonR1 said:

That was my point, I can't see what the loss is if he's paid for the month.

Yes, did guess.

But I was just focusing on the wrongful dismissal part of things there, I think I misunderstood your question a little bit.

Even if there's no claim for wrongful dismissal (or at least for any damages for it) it does not prevent a claim for unfair dismissal. On what we've got here, OP should be looking into that.

PS, should perhaps make clear for the OP: The first part of the award, (the 'basic award) where a dismissal is found to be unfair, is not based on loss. It's given according to a formula that takes into account earnings and length of service.

[havoc]

OP - is the work you're going into in ANY way in competition with your employer?

If so, then you've probably very little grounds for contesting it. You've done the fair thing but the naive thing and they're shafting you for it - lesson learned.


If not, then it's a grey area as discussed above - they're dismissing you rather than you leaving, so there is SOME case for contesting it.

[KFC]

LoonR1 said:

That was my point, I can't see what the loss is if he's paid for the month.

I would have thought one obvious loss would be the difference in his notice pay he did receive, and the money he would have received had he worked till the date he said. So you're looking at 1-2 months pay depending on dates.

[Jasandjules]

LoonR1 said:

Out of interest what do you think the outcome would be if his contract fpdidnt allow for him to be placed on garden leave? Bearing in mind that he has been paid. That's the only question I'm asking, put all the other stuff to one side and just focus on that specific question.

They would be in breach, he can then affirm. If they have restraint of trade clauses they would be void. He could claim unfair dismissal and potentially six months salary. There are other matters as well relating to loss of office I.e. tax. So quite a lot could change.

[anonymous-user]

Mopar440 said:

But any properly run company would have done the same to an errant (soon to be ex-) employee.

That's definitely not true.

To the OP, it's difficult to say but it sounds a bit rum to me.
(I would always consider the contractual notice period to be the minimum amount of time not the EXACT amount of time.

Why not start being "self employed" 2 months early and go and have a word with a local employment lawyer.

[CMYKguru]

Hand in your intention to leave just before the required notice period.

Can't imagine why you would do it well before.

If it was me I probably wouldn't tell anyone let alone the boss I was planning to leave to go self employed. Especially if the nature of business was exactly the same.

Also consider doing something like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBcLvJdrbro

Edited by CMYKguru on Tuesday 31st March 22:26

[LoonR1]

KFC said:

LoonR1 said:

That was my point, I can't see what the loss is if he's paid for the month.

I would have thought one obvious loss would be the difference in his notice pay he did receive, and the money he would have received had he worked till the date he said. So you're looking at 1-2 months pay depending on dates.

You've misread my question. I specifically said the one month on garden leave vs working the month. What is his loss. Forget the other two months for the purpose of that specific question.

The scenario he is in is a combination of several parts, all of which will be viewed on their own, rather than overlapped with each other. I picked one specific part only.

[Jasandjules]

LoonR1 said:

You've misread my question. I specifically said the one month on garden leave vs working the month. What is his loss. Forget the other two months for the purpose of that specific question.

The scenario he is in is a combination of several parts, all of which will be viewed on their own, rather than overlapped with each other. I picked one specifications part only.

Et remedies do not work that way. Thus his claim could be up to six months salary for future losses (would not aim higher than that but here there may also be a claim for costs of starting a business etc. ) Would expect a competent respondent to have a defence but ETs can be fickle and could make a reasonable award. It cuts both ways of course.