One sided employment clauses
Discussion
Hi all
my son is looking to leave his currently place of work and this is during his probation period.
Looking at his clause within the contract it states the employee must provide 3 months notice but this is in the general section and nothing mentioned for the probation period.
Within the probation period it states the employer may terminate at any time with 1 weeks notice but does not mention whether the 3 month still applies to our boy.
My understanding, and hence asking the question as I'm probably wrong, is that contracts cannot impose unfair clauses to one party - ie if the employer can terminate with one weeks notice, so the same should apply to the employee. Is this a fair understanding?
my son is looking to leave his currently place of work and this is during his probation period.
Looking at his clause within the contract it states the employee must provide 3 months notice but this is in the general section and nothing mentioned for the probation period.
Within the probation period it states the employer may terminate at any time with 1 weeks notice but does not mention whether the 3 month still applies to our boy.
My understanding, and hence asking the question as I'm probably wrong, is that contracts cannot impose unfair clauses to one party - ie if the employer can terminate with one weeks notice, so the same should apply to the employee. Is this a fair understanding?
randlemarcus said:
Its a good starting point for that assumption. Are relationships with his line manager good enough to use that as the starting point of a conversation?
Assuming the line manager isn't the problem, your lad should sit down with him and have a conversation about why he wants to leave and agree a reasonable timeframe...but in this instance reasonable is probably 1-3 weeks (depending on the type of work, how unhappy your lad is, and whether he's another job lined up) not 3 months.
Regardless of fairness of contract or not the first step is to speak to the person in charge of HR. To arrange a mutually agreeable resignation and schedule. There's no benefit in arguing on either side, an employee that's only been there a couple of weeks ca'nt be essential yet and any fees due to recruiters will be refundable based on short term of service, unless the company is particularly dense. It's in the companies interest to replace now whilst they still have a freshish list of applicants rather than go through the whole time and cost of the administration process of recruiting again in 3 months time.
Contracts which contain probation periods, tend to have these periods tacked on to a standard contract as a get out for employers wanting to get rid or a nightmare employee so are usually pretty lose.
But is your son sure? it won't look very good on his CV and if it's missed off future employers will ask about the gap.
Contracts which contain probation periods, tend to have these periods tacked on to a standard contract as a get out for employers wanting to get rid or a nightmare employee so are usually pretty lose.
But is your son sure? it won't look very good on his CV and if it's missed off future employers will ask about the gap.
Edited by hornmeister on Thursday 21st June 10:47
George Smiley said:
My understanding, and hence asking the question as I'm probably wrong, is that contracts cannot impose unfair clauses to one party - ie if the employer can terminate with one weeks notice, so the same should apply to the employee. Is this a fair understanding?
You are indeed wrong.Consumer contracts are regulated, but employment contracts may contain disparate notice periods.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 21st June 18:02
OP, you appear to have taken comfort from well meant advice given to you by people who may or may not have any relevant training or experience on which to base that advice. It's a matter for you.
By all means let people have friendly chats about work problems, but when the issue is what are the contractual obligations of the parties, that issue is resolved, subject to some presently irrelevant statutory and common law constraints, by what the contract says.
There is no general principle of English contract law that requires a contract to be in some general sense fair. Contrast German contract law, but Tom Bingham is dead, alas, and his attempt to import Germanic concepts of contractual fairness into English contract law died with him.
By all means let people have friendly chats about work problems, but when the issue is what are the contractual obligations of the parties, that issue is resolved, subject to some presently irrelevant statutory and common law constraints, by what the contract says.
There is no general principle of English contract law that requires a contract to be in some general sense fair. Contrast German contract law, but Tom Bingham is dead, alas, and his attempt to import Germanic concepts of contractual fairness into English contract law died with him.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 22 June 14:00
Where I worked in a past life (retail, this sounds like retail OP?) the notice period was in the contract. 3mo probation and 1 week notice from employee during probation was standard from my experience.
If it is retail or similar he should talk to the manager, staff turnover is hardly a shock in that business.
If it is retail or similar he should talk to the manager, staff turnover is hardly a shock in that business.
On a practical level the three month notice period us usually there to protect an employer from disruption to there business, employee go8ng to a competior and taking clients with him (non comepetes are not easy to enforce in a lot of instances). At the end of the day the employer is unlikely to want to pay your spn for another three months is he’s a realtiveky hew employee.
Although this all depends on why he wants to leave.
Although this all depends on why he wants to leave.
George Smiley said:
My understanding, and hence asking the question as I'm probably wrong, is that contracts cannot impose unfair clauses to one party - ie if the employer can terminate with one weeks notice, so the same should apply to the employee. Is this a fair understanding?
You can be bound by what is a bad bargain - in short the Court is not there to protect us from our own mistakes. That being said, I rather suspect a chat with HR will resolve this matter fairly quickly and agree a swifter amicable exit.
Terms where I work say the employee gets one week's notice for each complete year of service (the legal minimum) while employer gets one month from day 1. If it's in the contract and you sign it then you're bound by it, unfair as that may be. Of course, employers take the piss with these things 'cause they know how tough the job market is.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff