Told my employer I was leaving, didn't end well!
Discussion
RobinOakapple said:
wolves_wanderer said:
JPJPJP said:
If I was OP, I wouldn't spend a copper coin on legal advice over this, nor waste another single moment even thinking about it.
I would get on with the preparations for my new business / wedding / honeymoon and put from my mind that I made a mistake in how I handled the timing of my transition from employment to self employment.
I would be the same. Regardless of the rights or wrongs I doubt that there will be a positive financial outcome after legal costs etc. Having suffered because of honesty and consideration for employers a few years ago, now everything is by the book, if that means more trouble for them them too bad.I would get on with the preparations for my new business / wedding / honeymoon and put from my mind that I made a mistake in how I handled the timing of my transition from employment to self employment.
It's a shame how so much in life is spoiled by a few people, in this case it's a spiteful employer has now fixed it so that everybody who has read this thread will make damn sure not to give more notice than needed, even though there are plenty of decent employers who would appreciate extra warning.
a proprtion of employers caught on a while ago, even the NHS ... where notice periods for Band 7 and above were increased to 3 months ...
RobinOakapple said:
It's a shame how so much in life is spoiled by a few people, in this case it's a spiteful employer has now fixed it so that everybody who has read this thread will make damn sure not to give more notice than needed, even though there are plenty of decent employers who would appreciate extra warning.
Knowing your company requires one month notice, would you really give them three? Would you also add on to that notice that your intention is to go into direct competition with them?
That's not normal as far as I'm concerned. It's highly unlikely that a company isn't going to take some exception to that.
Then through this thread we've established that the OP has already purchased all the gear to go solo, and asked why he won't go solo now, is because he is too busy to work with all his wedding plans taking up all of May.
He has completely ignored countless questions about his losses if he intends to be off for a month in regards to holiday entitlement.
It seems odd that he has people fighting to have him on board, but he's too busy for that.
Has also changed his story through the thread.
Now we've heard more and more in little snippets, I can't help but extract the OP was fully expecting 3 months gardening leave.
He put the company in an awkward situation with his original and firm resignatio, then has changed the wording of it, also later introduced that one of the reasons for the long notice was to allow the company to find and help train someone.
What seems clear now, it was to suit his plans.
I find it hard to extract anything other than he expected 3 months gardening leave now we've heard more. However it does appear the law is extended notice has to be mutually agreed. It does appear the company are within their rights to accept one month's notice and pay him for sitting in the house for that month.
Things just don't add up here.
berlintaxi said:
singlecoil said:
I wouldn't bother, Craig, some of these posters are just out to get you.
Or perhaps they can see what is really going on.I'd suggest that they think they know what is going on, however the reality is that they don't know anything of the sort.
Devil2575 said:
berlintaxi said:
singlecoil said:
I wouldn't bother, Craig, some of these posters are just out to get you.
Or perhaps they can see what is really going on.I'd suggest that they think they know what is going on, however the reality is that they don't know anything of the sort.
The fact the OP has had to alter his version of the truth, the odd circumstances, it just doesn't read well before you hear the other side.
CraigJ said:
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.
What are the covenants in place?Why would they be planning legal action?
JustinP1 said:
CraigJ said:
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.
What are the covenants in place?Why would they be planning legal action?
ive read this thread and followed it
I think the OP has been caught out by his employers and that they have found out something what is not being disclosed. Maybe he has passed his details on to someone who has in turned said to another employee he will in future be using the OP after receiving his details and this has got back to the company. So they have terminated his contract due to this. He has already said that people have been asking for his details.
jus my 2p's worth
I think the OP has been caught out by his employers and that they have found out something what is not being disclosed. Maybe he has passed his details on to someone who has in turned said to another employee he will in future be using the OP after receiving his details and this has got back to the company. So they have terminated his contract due to this. He has already said that people have been asking for his details.
jus my 2p's worth
JustinP1 said:
CraigJ said:
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.
What are the covenants in place?Why would they be planning legal action?
This seems completely contrary to your first post. What's changed?
I haven't removed any posts.
I think some people on here are trying to look for things that are not there. This isn't some huge conspiracy.
As for holidays. Had I been employed up to the 30th of June, yes I would have had more than enough holidays to cover the time off for the wedding.
As for the customers. I said they had been asking for my details. For obvious reasons they haven't been asking me for them. I have been told by others in this trade.
Customers now know I'm going self employed because my employer told them, not me. So that's there fault.
I think some people on here are trying to look for things that are not there. This isn't some huge conspiracy.
As for holidays. Had I been employed up to the 30th of June, yes I would have had more than enough holidays to cover the time off for the wedding.
As for the customers. I said they had been asking for my details. For obvious reasons they haven't been asking me for them. I have been told by others in this trade.
Customers now know I'm going self employed because my employer told them, not me. So that's there fault.
Monkeylegend said:
JustinP1 said:
CraigJ said:
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.
What are the covenants in place?Why would they be planning legal action?
This seems completely contrary to your first post. What's changed?
I asked the question as to me it seems that this is the 'elephant in the room'. The OP's made it clear to the employer he's going self employed in the same field, he's made clear that his personal details are being requested from current clients, and off his own back brought up an angle of how he could escape from restrictive covenants.
To me it seems that this is the real issue that the employer and the OP are actually worried about.
Red Devil said:
Was that the full extent of the conversation? If not what else was said by either side?
I was asked why I was intending to leave. Told them I was going self employed. I asked if he would find out when I needed to put notice in and how (email/letter)
The conversation then went off to things that were not relevant.
Heard nothing till next day. Got a call asking me to meet at a local site with all my equipment. This was checked and i went home.
CraigJ said:
Customers now know I'm going self employed because my employer told them, not me. So that's there fault.
I find this whole situation really bizarre.I respect that we're looking at a puzzle with half the pieces missing and there are logical explanations, but I'm scratching my hear over the fact that you were concerned that your employer might be planning legal action over possible covenant breach, but they've all but advertised you as a sole trader.
I've seen this scenario happen a few times, but never like this!
Can I ask how your employer told customers that you were going self employed, and what exactly the communication said?
CraigJ said:
The covenants did concern me to begin with but the more I have looked into it the less concern I now have over them.
I'd get specific legal advice about that before you take action where you may be in breach. It may be that you are advised to negotiate what you want to do in advance to head off possible misunderstanding and legal action later.
These situation can get nasty with injunctions and all sorts so don't go into that with generic internet advice.
JustinP1 said:
I find this whole situation really bizarre.
I respect that we're looking at a puzzle with half the pieces missing and there are logical explanations, but I'm scratching my hear over the fact that you were concerned that your employer might be planning legal action over possible covenant breach, but they've all but advertised you as a sole trader.
I've seen this scenario happen a few times, but never like this!
Can I ask how your employer told customers that you were going self employed, and what exactly the communication said?
I wasn't there when they found out. I was told the next day when a friend in this trade rang me to ask if it was true. He told me he heard it from the site where I met my employer the day before. So I can only assume it came from my employer whether by accident or on purpose.I respect that we're looking at a puzzle with half the pieces missing and there are logical explanations, but I'm scratching my hear over the fact that you were concerned that your employer might be planning legal action over possible covenant breach, but they've all but advertised you as a sole trader.
I've seen this scenario happen a few times, but never like this!
Can I ask how your employer told customers that you were going self employed, and what exactly the communication said?
JustinP1 said:
but I'm scratching my head over the fact that you were concerned that your employer might be planning legal action over possible covenant breach, but they've all but advertised you as a sole trader.
Whether the customers know in advance that he's going solo or not, and how they know, makes no difference at all to any contractual non-poaching restrictions Craig's bound by.To overturn the covenants you're going to have to prove your employer acted unlawfully in respect to your first email and/or you were constructively dismissed. Or that the covenants themselves are unfair irrespective of your departure.
I think anyone sitting in judgement would agree even if they sided with you that your original email is so badly worded that your employer had reasonable grounds to act and only through subsequent conversations did the balance of probability pass to you. Lets face it, half of us on here think one thing, the rest think the another.
So your employer would concede this if they really felt it was too much trouble, counter argue that the contract should not be overturned in entirety and that they would honour the later end date, pay you the 4 grand and do all this in the 11th hour. If you went to a formal ruling after this you'd have an employer who's now acted reasonably against you.
They'd then pop a desist order on you as a sole trader or limited company to stop you working and you're in for a big bill to clear it and that would wipe away any pay off pretty quickly. Your customers may also be made aware of the legal ramifications and may decided to steer clear.
Basically I can't see many routes that lead you to a good position. You have two hopes, your employer is not the evil monster that oakyapple thinks all companies are and as a gesture of goodwill to make this go away offer you some cash. You never know, they may want to employ you a subcontractor one day (I've done this with a grad who we trained, left to go round the world and then came back a sub). Or you push it all the way and pray you don't run out of cash.
I think anyone sitting in judgement would agree even if they sided with you that your original email is so badly worded that your employer had reasonable grounds to act and only through subsequent conversations did the balance of probability pass to you. Lets face it, half of us on here think one thing, the rest think the another.
So your employer would concede this if they really felt it was too much trouble, counter argue that the contract should not be overturned in entirety and that they would honour the later end date, pay you the 4 grand and do all this in the 11th hour. If you went to a formal ruling after this you'd have an employer who's now acted reasonably against you.
They'd then pop a desist order on you as a sole trader or limited company to stop you working and you're in for a big bill to clear it and that would wipe away any pay off pretty quickly. Your customers may also be made aware of the legal ramifications and may decided to steer clear.
Basically I can't see many routes that lead you to a good position. You have two hopes, your employer is not the evil monster that oakyapple thinks all companies are and as a gesture of goodwill to make this go away offer you some cash. You never know, they may want to employ you a subcontractor one day (I've done this with a grad who we trained, left to go round the world and then came back a sub). Or you push it all the way and pray you don't run out of cash.
I think the idea that this firm could stop him letting their customers know that he is now on business for himself by getting rid of him early is a bit pathetic, as if he would be likely to forget the places he's been working at.
In any case, as he will now be covering a wider range than his employer did, just as he did before he started working for them, he has a perfectly legitimate reason for calling on customers and offering his services.
In any case, as he will now be covering a wider range than his employer did, just as he did before he started working for them, he has a perfectly legitimate reason for calling on customers and offering his services.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff