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

[anonymous-user]

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 specific part only.

Putting someone on garden leave can be seen as breach of contract, so it is possible it invalidates the contract and therefore any restrictions..

No idea what the loss is in those circumstances other than the lost opportunity to do an honest day's work.

[Al U]

zarjaz1991 said:

I've left two jobs in the past with more than the required notice - the reason being that I knew that getting me replaced would take longer than a month, and I did not want to leave my employers and their remaining staff in the do-da. (And no, I wasn't under any sort of disciplinary investigation).

The only other thing I have to add to this thread is that this attitude shouldn't be necessary. If you know it would take more than a month to replace you, why didn't the HR department think of/know that when they signed you up?

It isn't your responsibility to give your employer adequate time to hire a replacement for you. At my last place they became wise to this and started putting people on 3 month notice periods. Some people like me liked the extra security of knowing I would have 3 months to find a new role if they wanted rid of me. Some didn't like the thought of serving a 3 month notice period to get in a new role, longer notice periods make you a less appealing prospect to a new company that need you asap.

As I found though if they want you enough, they will wait. I do think this is a unique example though as you are effectively going to be costing them money for every customer that gets their product repaired instead of buying new.

[LoonR1]

Jasandjules said:

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.

I don't k ow the answer, I just wanted clarit on that one element. Problem is everyone overlapped the other

So let's make up this scenario. If I am on a weeks notice and I habpnd it in and my employer puts me on garden leave for that week, even though it's not in my contract, do I really have a claim?

I can't see it but then I'm not an expert.

[thelawnet]

CraigJ said:

Like I have already stated. I was in this field of work for years before I worked for this company. I was approached by them because of my knowledge and expertise in the field. I already had a business relationship with the clients i worjk with now. The only thing that has changed was the company that paid me each month.

And you dodged my question, are they in there legal right to dismiss me with one months pay because I have stated my intent to leave in 3 months time? I have asked for advice yet all you are doing is spouting crap and building a post count. If you have nothing useful to add then don't fill this thread with your unhelpful crap.

I don't think they can do this. https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/unfair-and-constructi...

I would write them a letter claiming unfair dismissal, after you have been paid for the next month (at least get that first), claiming the two months' pay, and saying if they don't pay up you will take them to the tribunal.

Tribunal claim is free and easy, but my bet is they pay up before you get there.

Doesn't seem to be complicated at all to me.

[LoonR1]

thelawnet said:

I don't think they can do this. https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/unfair-and-constructi...

I would write them a letter claiming unfair dismissal, after you have been paid for the next month (at least get that first), claiming the two months' pay, and saying if they don't pay up you will take them to the tribunal.

Tribunal claim is free and easy, but my bet is they pay up before you get there.

Doesn't seem to be complicated at all to me.

It's not free it's a minimum of c£400 up to £1200 IIRC for a tribunal.

[vonhosen]

thelawnet said:

CraigJ said:

Like I have already stated. I was in this field of work for years before I worked for this company. I was approached by them because of my knowledge and expertise in the field. I already had a business relationship with the clients i worjk with now. The only thing that has changed was the company that paid me each month.

And you dodged my question, are they in there legal right to dismiss me with one months pay because I have stated my intent to leave in 3 months time? I have asked for advice yet all you are doing is spouting crap and building a post count. If you have nothing useful to add then don't fill this thread with your unhelpful crap.

I don't think they can do this. https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/unfair-and-constructi...

I would write them a letter claiming unfair dismissal, after you have been paid for the next month (at least get that first), claiming the two months' pay, and saying if they don't pay up you will take them to the tribunal.

Tribunal claim is free and easy, but my bet is they pay up before you get there.

Doesn't seem to be complicated at all to me.

Which bit do you think applies (from the link)?

The OPs circumstances read like:-
Either party had to give a months notice.
He gave them three, they said we only need the one.
You aren't dismissed, just don't bother coming in to work during your notice period, but you'll be paid as if you did come into work during it.

[KFC]

vonhosen said:

He gave them three, they said we only need the one.

If he's told them he wants to leave on June 1st I don't think they can selectively accept what he said. Surely they can't interpret it to mean leaving today with a months notice?

[vonhosen]

KFC said:

vonhosen said:

He gave them three, they said we only need the one.

If he's told them he wants to leave on June 1st I don't think they can selectively accept what he said. Surely they can't interpret it to mean leaving today with a months notice?

Why can't they give their own months notice at anytime (if a months notice is what is required by either side in the contract)?

[Sheepshanks]

thelawnet said:

I don't think they can do this. https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/unfair-and-constructi...

I would write them a letter claiming unfair dismissal, after you have been paid for the next month (at least get that first), claiming the two months' pay, and saying if they don't pay up you will take them to the tribunal.

Tribunal claim is free and easy, but my bet is they pay up before you get there.

Doesn't seem to be complicated at all to me.

Wonder if rather than going to a Tribunal, OP could just use the Small Claims system? Big companies don't like legal action hanging over them so might just pay it, or he could even win by default. No idea what the chances of success are if they take him on though.

There's always a danger in all this (which I suppose exists anyway, but could be worse the more he pokes his former employer) that they might try and block his new venture.

[CraigJ]

Sheepshanks said:

Wonder if rather than going to a Tribunal, OP could just use the Small Claims system? Big companies don't like legal action hanging over them so might just pay it, or he could even win by default. No idea what the chances of success are if they take him on though.

There's always a danger in all this (which I suppose exists anyway, but could be worse the more he pokes his former employer) that they might try and block his new venture.

If i can prove they have breached my contract then all convents in my contract should be null and void. I'd be more happy about this than getting the 2 months pay I have lost as it will mean I can concentrate on my business with out having the worry if they are planning legal action.

Just to summarize:

I have worked for them for just over 3 years.
I was in this trade before I worked for them.
I was hired because of the work I do.

Monday I sent an email stating my intent to leave on the 30th of june. (picked this date as I get married in May)
Less than 24 hours later I was being told that the email I sent was being taken as my notice. (oddly thought the week before a collage gave his notice by email and was told it was not acceptable and he was made to send it in writing)

There are no disciplinary's over me and they had no idea I was going until I told them.

I am going into business for my self and I have told them. My work will not effect their contracts and I will not be doing work on just there product.

Do they have the legal right to end my employment early just because I'm going into business for my self in a similar trade or will it be seen as an unfair dismissal?

[Funk]

As far as I can see this is how things panned out:

• You are required to give one month of notice
• Company are required to do the same if they want you to leave
• You emailed to say you are planning to leave in 3 months (it doesn't actually look like you resigned, just stated intent to do so?)
• Company exercised their right invoke your month notice and said they don't require you to work your notice

Unfortunately you've snookered yourself I think; they've done nothing wrong although nor have you though apart from showing your hand to them. I genuinely believe you thought you were doing the 'right thing' and 'helping them out' but you have to take all the emotion out of business and look at the facts.

• They know you're leaving regardless
• You were unlikely to have worked at 100% for the next 3 months knowing you're leaving
• They have saved paying you 2 months' salary

Rule number one - look out only for yourself; no-one else is going to.

[anonymous-user]

It's late and I may be missing the point, but a company just doesn't have the right to give one month's notice and get rid.

[CraigJ]

desolate said:

It's late and I may be missing the point, but a company just doesn't have the right to give one month's notice and get rid.

This is my point. I am waiting on a letter to explain but I was told today that they are using the email I sent as my months notice which it clearly isn't.

If they have breached the contract then from what I have read on line on legal sites the contract will be null and void. I will be happy with this and get on with my life as I will have no worries and they can keep the 2 months pay.

[anonymous-user]

CraigJ said:

This is my point. I am waiting on a letter to explain but I was told today that they are using the email I sent as my months notice which it clearly isn't.

If they have breached the contract then from what I have read on line on legal sites the contract will be null and void. I will be happy with this and get on with my life as I will have no worries and they can keep the 2 months pay.

Don't trust what you read on the net. Get a review from a proper solicitor. It really won't cost much.

[KFC]

CraigJ said:

If i can prove they have breached my contract then all convents in my contract should be null and void.

You really need to go get some real, paid for legal advice as this point is nonsense. Breaching one part of a contract doesn't automatically make the rest of it invalid.

[CraigJ]

Sorry but was just going by what I had read on this Solicitors website about the covenants being void if my employer has broken the contract.
http://www.lindermyers.co.uk/are-restrictive-coven...

[cahami]

If the company told you they would go bust in three months, but would give you a months salary to go and find another job or start up on your own would you take the money?
The company will always protect its interests, people are expendable life goes on just start up earlier than you intended and you will not have lost any money. once you get established and become an employer you will also have to make some important decisions that other people may not like.

[Funk]

desolate said:

It's late and I may be missing the point, but a company just doesn't have the right to give one month's notice and get rid.

As far as I'm aware, either party can end the employment by giving the required notice period?

Gov't website said:

Notice your employer must give you:

Whatever your contract says, your employer must give you at least the statutory minimum period of notice. This will depend on how long you've worked for them:

one week if you've been continuously employed for between one month and two years
one week for each complete year (up to a maximum of 12) if you've been continuously employed for two or more years

It's entirely possible I'm wrong but surely the company has simply given the OP notice in line with what they're required to do? If they were dismissing him immediately and without pay then there would be a case to answer but I'm not entirely certain they've done anything wrong?

[KFC]

vonhosen said:

KFC said:

vonhosen said:

He gave them three, they said we only need the one.

If he's told them he wants to leave on June 1st I don't think they can selectively accept what he said. Surely they can't interpret it to mean leaving today with a months notice?

Why can't they give their own months notice at anytime (if a months notice is what is required by either side in the contract)?

I never said they couldn't.

But if they can do that, its slightly different. As they've got rid of him, rather than him quitting. Which could have implications further down the line (restricted from claiming benefits etc).

Either way it comes down to the OP being a bit naive and trusting. He really should have looked out for number 1 here.

[belly2002]

CraigJ said:

Do they have the legal right to end my employment early just because I'm going into business for my self in a similar trade or will it be seen as an unfair dismissal?

No, they (probably) don't have the right to end your employment early because of that. (but I suppose it's possible that certain contractual terms could change that position).

But they do have the right to terminate on one month's notice, by the sound of it.

Terminating on one month't notice is not the same as giving you one month's payment in lieu. If your contract does not provide for payment in lieu of notice then it's possible, but not definite, that they have wrongfully dismissed you. If so, restraint of trade clauses are likely to be rendered unenforceable.

Don't confuse all the above with unfair dismissal. That's a different claim that exists regardless of whether or not there has been a wrongful dismissal.

thelawnet said:

Tribunal claim is free and easy, but my bet is they pay up before you get there.

Wrong. £250 to issue a claim such as this and (another) £950 to have it heard. Rules changed July 2013.

vonhosen said:

Why can't they give their own months notice at anytime (if a months notice is what is required by either side in the contract)?

They can. But they haven't. They've given payment in lieu of notice and that's not the same. And in any case, there may still be a claim for unfair dismissal. Once again, unfair dismissal does not require there to have been a breach of contract.

KFC said:

CraigJ said:

If i can prove they have breached my contract then all convents in my contract should be null and void.

You really need to go get some real, paid for legal advice as this point is nonsense. Breaching one part of a contract doesn't automatically make the rest of it invalid.

Much as I love your secret recipe, I'm afraid you're wrong KFC. You're confusing whether or not terms found to be invalid are severable from the remainder with the situation here, where (potentially) a repudiatory breach may have released both parties from their future obligations under the contract.

desolate said:

Don't trust what you read on the net. Get a review from a proper solicitor. It really won't cost much.

Couldn't agree more with the first part of this. With all due respect to posters trying to help, OP's getting much incorrect information here. But I'm not sure I agree with the last part. Costs can rack up quickly, depending on who you go to. OP could try to free advice first via CAB etc to ascertain the basic position and decide whether he wants to go further.

contract of employment said:

we don't know!

And that's what you need to check OP. Pretty much everything on this thread I've read is just musing, until the terms of your contract are inspected. Which is what you need to do next and/or get proper advice.

I'll try to summarise what I believe the case to be though:

• if there's no provision for payment in lieu then they may have wrongfully dismissed you;
• BUT that's not a simple question; it will depend on the circumstances;
• IF they wrongfully dismissed you, then restrictive covenants will become unenforceable;
• BUT it's a multi-billion euro company. Their contracts will almost certainly have provisions for payment in lieu of notice. So don't get your hopes up.
• aside from all that and as a separate matter, you may have a claim for unfair dismissal. Have a look into it. Awards for unfair dismissal do not depend (entirely) on being able to show loss.

From the information provided and making a couple of assumptions, unfair dismissal is probably your best option if you want to pursue this.

If the release from restrictive covenants is the more important outcome for you then you really do need some proper advice. The difficulty I expect you're going to have is to know with certainty whether or not you have been released from your obligations without paying to get it to court before you go on to compete. Depending on how much money you expect to make during the restricted period and comparing it to a potential claim against you later, you might decide you'd be best off getting a paper round for a couple of months.

Good luck.

ETA: Just realised there's one thing that hasn't been addressed through all of this. I think you said that they'd taken your email to be you giving notice. I don't know whether they can do that or not in the general sense, and in any case it's going to depend on the wording of your mail and possibly provisions in the contract. It's an important point, because if they are within their rights to do that, then you may not have been 'dismissed' within it's legal meaning. If you haven't been dismissed then you won't have a claim either for wrongful or unfair dismissal. The clue's in the name . Get some advice.

Edited by belly2002 on Wednesday 1st April 07:30