Told my employer I was leaving, didn't end well!
Discussion
Jonsv8 said:
So he's giving notice, that means notice is given.
He then goes on to offer to vary his notice period.
This is not about the semantics of what he meant, it's clear what he intended.
This is about what he actually did. He resigned.
If that email is not a resignation then he's ok. If it is, and I read it as it is, then the clock started and all his requests to leave at a later date, different forms of correspondence etc are offers and requests to clarify the process.
Revert back to early posts where the crux of this is simply that: was this a resignation? Or was it a conditional offer, seeking information or something else. And I maintain the words 'I am writing to give notice... ' is a resignation.
The employer has stated in their response they see this as a resignation. They are not dismissing him.
I've put the parts where you are going wrong in bold. It doesn't matter how you read it, it matters how the judge (or a lawyer who the employers will eventually consult when the OP takes action) will read it.He then goes on to offer to vary his notice period.
This is not about the semantics of what he meant, it's clear what he intended.
This is about what he actually did. He resigned.
If that email is not a resignation then he's ok. If it is, and I read it as it is, then the clock started and all his requests to leave at a later date, different forms of correspondence etc are offers and requests to clarify the process.
Revert back to early posts where the crux of this is simply that: was this a resignation? Or was it a conditional offer, seeking information or something else. And I maintain the words 'I am writing to give notice... ' is a resignation.
The employer has stated in their response they see this as a resignation. They are not dismissing him.
Martin4x4 said:
While I did transpose months for weeks in the first draft, that doesn't change my fundamental point.
The minimum is one month and two weeks and the maximum is three months.
The OP gave three months, which clearly falls within the limits.
Also as none drafting party of the contract/handbook the interpretation favours the OP; therefore three months notice correctly
Sorry, you are still incorrect. The minimum is one month and two weeks and the maximum is three months.
The OP gave three months, which clearly falls within the limits.
Also as none drafting party of the contract/handbook the interpretation favours the OP; therefore three months notice correctly
Edited by Martin4x4 on Saturday 4th April 09:09
The minimum and maximum are linked to the employment period, so 13 years onwards has a maximum of 3 months.
Martin4x4 said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
No, it say one week per year, minimum one month maximum three months.
OP worked three years, so one month.
While I did transpose months for weeks in the first draft, that doesn't change my fundamental point.OP worked three years, so one month.
The minimum is one month and two weeks and the maximum is three months.
The OP gave three months, which clearly falls within the limits.
Also as none drafting party of the contract/handbook the interpretation favours the OP; therefore three months notice correctly
Edited by Martin4x4 on Saturday 4th April 09:09
PurpleMoonlight said:
Sorry, you are still incorrect.
The minimum and maximum are linked to the employment period, so 13 years onwards has a maximum of 3 months.
That is not what it says.The minimum and maximum are linked to the employment period, so 13 years onwards has a maximum of 3 months.
However even if _you_ choose to interpret it that way, the non-drafting rules apply, and interpretation most favourable to the OP applies.
singlecoil said:
CraigJ said:
I emailed HR stating that i intended to resign on the 30th of June 2015.
Seems perfectly clear to me. The employers are using it as an excuse to act illegally, hoping that they will get away with it, and they still might if you don't take action.the OP resigned , the employer held them to their contractural notice period.
CraigJ said:
Martin4x4 said:
That is not what it says.
However even if _you_ choose to interpret it that way, the non-drafting rules apply, and interpretation most favourable to the OP applies.
It says... 1 week for each year. Minimum is 1 month, max is 3 months. The min and max are bounds on the range, the range is calculated by the number of years. IT REALLY IS NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTANDHowever even if _you_ choose to interpret it that way, the non-drafting rules apply, and interpretation most favourable to the OP applies.
But as you've misquoted it in just about every post, maybe it is for you
mph1977 said:
singlecoil said:
CraigJ said:
I emailed HR stating that i intended to resign on the 30th of June 2015.
Seems perfectly clear to me. The employers are using it as an excuse to act illegally, hoping that they will get away with it, and they still might if you don't take action.the OP resigned , the employer held them to their contractural notice period.
RobinOakapple said:
Actually, the OP didn't resign, he informed them of his intention to resign at a point in the future. All resignations have an effective date, sometimes specified, sometimes not. That's why when people are resigning with immediate effect, they actually say that. In words. The OP didn't.
So by your logic the OP could therefore do nothing more and he keep his job beyond the 30th June as its not a resignation?Jonsv8 said:
RobinOakapple said:
Actually, the OP didn't resign, he informed them of his intention to resign at a point in the future. All resignations have an effective date, sometimes specified, sometimes not. That's why when people are resigning with immediate effect, they actually say that. In words. The OP didn't.
So by your logic the OP could therefore do nothing more and he keep his job beyond the 30th June as its not a resignation?CraigJ said:
Just looking for some advice on this. Is it worth chasing.
Yesterday I emailed my employer stating I planned to leave the company on the 30th of June this year to go self employed.
To day I have been told to leave with 1 months pay. (My notice period is one month) I stated I was planning to leave in three months, And asked if they were happy to take three months notice or if I had to submit my notice in two months time.
We can see that his intention is clear, and that he is not resigning effective immediately, as I undersatand you are suggesting, but that he is leaving on the 30th June. IT REALLY IS NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTANDYesterday I emailed my employer stating I planned to leave the company on the 30th of June this year to go self employed.
To day I have been told to leave with 1 months pay. (My notice period is one month) I stated I was planning to leave in three months, And asked if they were happy to take three months notice or if I had to submit my notice in two months time.
RobinOakapple said:
We can see that his intention is clear, and that he is not resigning effective immediately, as I undersatand you are suggesting, but that he is leaving on the 30th June. IT REALLY IS NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND
You've not answered the question on whether it was a resignation or not. His posts on here are not what he put in the email to his employer.
I'll try a different approach, despite the fact I don't believe for a minute any employment lawyer worth his/her salt will do anything but tell him to suck it up.
Let's say:
1) the OP goes to an ET with an unfair dismissal claim
2) he finds a 'top employment barrister' willing to take his case
3) he wins or
4) the employer offers to settle
What do you think he is going to get out of this, net?
We're going to have to do a bit of guessing here but mine is that the OP is on about £20K a year basic.
Let's say:
1) the OP goes to an ET with an unfair dismissal claim
2) he finds a 'top employment barrister' willing to take his case
3) he wins or
4) the employer offers to settle
What do you think he is going to get out of this, net?
We're going to have to do a bit of guessing here but mine is that the OP is on about £20K a year basic.
Jonsv8 said:
RobinOakapple said:
We can see that his intention is clear, and that he is not resigning effective immediately, as I undersatand you are suggesting, but that he is leaving on the 30th June. IT REALLY IS NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND
You've not answered the question on whether it was a resignation or not. His posts on here are not what he put in the email to his employer.
Jonsv8 said:
RobinOakapple said:
We can see that his intention is clear, and that he is not resigning effective immediately, as I undersatand you are suggesting, but that he is leaving on the 30th June. IT REALLY IS NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND
You've not answered the question on whether it was a resignation or not. His posts on here are not what he put in the email to his employer.
"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."
RobinOakapple said:
Jonsv8 said:
RobinOakapple said:
We can see that his intention is clear, and that he is not resigning effective immediately, as I undersatand you are suggesting, but that he is leaving on the 30th June. IT REALLY IS NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND
You've not answered the question on whether it was a resignation or not. His posts on here are not what he put in the email to his employer.
mph1977 said:
RobinOakapple said:
Jonsv8 said:
RobinOakapple said:
We can see that his intention is clear, and that he is not resigning effective immediately, as I undersatand you are suggesting, but that he is leaving on the 30th June. IT REALLY IS NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND
You've not answered the question on whether it was a resignation or not. His posts on here are not what he put in the email to his employer.
Jonsv8 said:
It says... 1 week for each year. Minimum is 1 month, max is 3 months. The min and max are bounds on the range, the range is calculated by the number of years. IT REALLY IS NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND
But as you've misquoted it in just about every post, maybe it is for you
You are right that this is not hard to understand, you are wrong that it has a single simple interpretation. Furthermore the fact you needed to add full stops and remove the critically important "subject to" part to change the meaning to emphasise one interpretation proves the sentence is ambiguous; which once again bring us back to non-drafting.But as you've misquoted it in just about every post, maybe it is for you
Devil2575 said:
Given that the OP is now seeking legal advice is there any point in continuing silly arguments about how he may or may not have worded his communication with his employer.
It probably would be a good thing if those putting forward silly arguments were to stop doing so.But it's worth remembering that employees are not expected to couch communications to their employers in carefully drafted legal language. As long as his meaning was clear, then he is in the right and the employer is in the wrong.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff