Employer changing notice period

[jdwoodbury]

I am currently looking to move roles and I stumbled across my existing contract which states (and is signed by me) that I have to provide 1 month notice. When I spoke to HR they stated that this was wrong and was changed in 2006 to a 3 month period, the only evidence of this is a note on the salary review saying there may be a change to T&C's

Where do I stand with this, if I have not signed or agreed this change to contract? According to Employment Law as I understand there is no need to obtain a signature, but they do have to provide a notice of the change in writing.

Has anyone challenged this in the past?

[Y282]

i've heard the argument used that if you are given something in writing that changes your contract and you continue to turn up it means you've accepted it. how much scrutiny this would stand up to i'm not sure though.

[jdwoodbury]

Yes I have heard the same, although a couple of years ago (during redundancy rounds) I asked for a copy of my current contract. They sent me the one with the 1 month notice period, and this was certainly after the alleged change to T&C's

[TurricanII]

Contracts I have seen state clearly that changes will be signed off by both employer and employee..

I might be inclined to tell HR in writing that I do not accept the proposed change to the notice period however that I would make every effort to negotiate a longer 'lead in' period with any future potential employer to support them in finding a replacement.

And then get a new job pronto before someone up the food chain starts gunning for you!

[TigerS6]

Y282 said:

i've heard the argument used that if you are given something in writing that changes your contract and you continue to turn up it means you've accepted it.

This is an 'implied' contract, but I would argue that this is not the case here.
an implied contract is one where both parties know to exist and agree.
For example, I take an hour lunch every day for 5 years, this is not challenged and accepted by all parties, now ther eis a focus on costs and work patterns I am then told that it 'should' have been only 40 minutes.
My implied contract dictates otherwise and therefore I remain on an hour.

In this case, it is not implied, as one party (the OP) was unaware.

(AIMO of course )

[Cmof]

No. it's not an implied term, as notice periods are required by law to be an express term and included in the Written Statement of Particulars. If you have had no consultation or an exact written statement of the new term with a notice period, then the old term prevails.

[jdwoodbury]

Cmof said:

No. it's not an implied term, as notice periods are required by law to be an express term and included in the Written Statement of Particulars. If you have had no consultation or an exact written statement of the new term with a notice period, then the old term prevails.

Thanks for the info, I now have a new job offer so we shall see how I get on challanging this.

[Fer]

I had a mate have a 3 month notice period tried to be enforced when he wanted to move on. He asked them what their policy for "disgruntled employees" was, and was told that they were asked to leave immediately.

He then informed them that in a months time he would become disgruntled. They agreed to the 1 month period.

[bucksmanuk]

Fer said:

He then informed them that in a months time he would become disgruntled. They agreed to the 1 month period.

I do like that one!

[Pommygranite]

Sounds like the job has already been filled, probably internally.

I wouldn't take the decline personally.