Unequal notice periods

[BMWBen]

I've somehow managed to land a new job in the midst of the current craziness... Got the contract through today, and it's got a set of notice periods that I wasn't really expecting.

For between 1 month and 2 years service, the company has to give 1 weeks notice, but I would have to give one month.

For between 2 and 4 years the company has to give 1 month notice, but I would have to give 2 months.

For 4 years plus my notice stays at 2 months, but the company notice increases 1 week at a time per year of service up to a maximum of 12 weeks.

I've not seen a notice arrangement like this before, and would assume that the fair agreement would be equal notice periods for both parties. I'm tempted to push back on it and try and get equal terms..

Is this a normal thing and I've just not seen it before?

[geeks]

We have similar in our contracts, you could try but I would bank on a response of "These are our standard terms!" also given the current climate and you have only just secured a role, is it worth rocking the boat right now?

[craigjm]

It’s nothing unusual. I wouldn’t rock the boat on something like that to be honest. Remember these things always end up becoming negotiable should the requirement arrive. I’ve never worked a full notice period.

[Wilmslowboy]

No its not a normal thing, I'd push back, whether they budge comes down to if you have any leverage.


Frankly, it implies an organisation with an odd mindset when it comes to employees.

[Wilmslowboy]

I'm surprised that it might be normal, I've worked for the past 25 years and seen employee contracts for perhaps as many as 50 companies, and I have never come across it.

I have seen different notice periods for the length of service (before and after probation periods) but none that mandate the employee has to give more than the organisation are willing to.

[BMWBen]

Interesting... 2 - 2 draw at the moment.

If it adds any clarity this is for a fairly senior role at the company...

In some regards yeah, why rock the boat. Another point of view might be that this is the only chance you get to clamp down on things like this!

The contract also limits sick pay to SSP. I've asked for a copy of the employee handbook to see if they actually have another policy in practice...

The money and the role sound pretty good, and everyone that I met really seems to enjoy working there. I was surprised to see these harsh terms!

[craigjm]

Wilmslowboy said:

No its not a normal thing, I'd push back, whether they budge comes down to if you have any leverage.


Frankly, it implies an organisation with an odd mindset when it comes to employees.

Can you elaborate on that? What’s the issue?

The first two years is just standard employment law stuff and then beyond that it’s not unusual for a company to want a longer notice from an employee. The extending number of weeks the company have to give the employee from that point on rolling gives more notice to the employee of a potential issue. What’s wrong with that?

[journeymanpro]

Had this with my latest role I took up 6 months ago.

They wanted me to give 3 months and them only one, that wasn't going to happen.

Now we both give 3 months, only fair.

[Wilmslowboy]

craigjm said:

Can you elaborate on that? What’s the issue?

The first two years is just standard employment law stuff and then beyond that it’s not unusual for a company to want a longer notice from an employee. The extending number of weeks the company have to give the employee from that point on rolling gives more notice to the employee of a potential issue. What’s wrong with that?

Yes its standard for the notice period to change over time, but I'm not sure it is normal for an organisation only to be willing to give one months notice but expect the employee to give two. - this feels like an unbalanced relationship (contract).

[cs174]

I've been in the same situation before and it was changed to be the same notice period for both parties after I challenged it. So, definitely raise it OP.

[craigjm]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It’s not though is it. Especially after 4 years.

[Wilmslowboy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Correct and that is only because it is mandated under statutory requirements.

https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/notice-p...

[craigjm]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yeah true but it can largely irrelevant anyway because if they want to get rid of you they can just make you redundant and notice periods in my experience are always negotiable. All depends on how much of a difference it really makes to the OP. Personally I wouldn’t give a rats ass.

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

We used to have equal length notice periods.

We than had a rash of people who just weren't up to it. As a result we changed our contracts to employer notice of 1 week up to a year, then mirrored ees/ers thereafter.

Made life a bit easier and decent employees were no worse off.

[BMWBen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It does affect how much they have to pay you when they make you redundant though...

[anonymous-user]

Wilmslowboy said:

No its not a normal thing, I'd push back, whether they budge comes down to if you have any leverage.


Frankly, it implies an organisation with an odd mindset when it comes to employees.

No it doesn't, and its perfectly normal.

[spikeyhead]

Breadvan72 said:

Wilmslowboy said:

No its not a normal thing, I'd push back, whether they budge comes down to if you have any leverage.


Frankly, it implies an organisation with an odd mindset when it comes to employees.

No it doesn't, and its perfectly normal.

Really? I've had a few try employers try putting unequal terms in, and have always accepted that they should be equal when I've pushed back.

...but most have had them equal.

[anonymous-user]

It is always a matter of negotiation, but there is no legal requirement for the notice periods to be the same on both sides. Statute provides for minimum notice periods employer to employee. Otherwise, it's a matter of what the parties agree.

[Wilmslowboy]

Breadvan72 said:

Wilmslowboy said:

No its not a normal thing, I'd push back, whether they budge comes down to if you have any leverage.

Frankly, it implies an organisation with an odd mindset when it comes to employees.

No it doesn't, and its perfectly normal. .

I am not sure it is 'normal', (typical, the norm, common, happens in the majority of cases), this is based on my personal experience, however this thread has taught me that perhaps it's not as rare as I thought.

In terms of an 'odd mindset', what is suggested is,

as an employee if we don't like you etc, we need to give you less notice than if you don't like us, I'm not sure if this meets the 'fair test'.

No doubt your legal postion is correct, however the questions asked were is it common, and is it fair ?

To which I would suggest No to both.

[anonymous-user]

You don't have to be Karl Marx to realise that the essence of the employment relationship is not perfect fairness and equality! There is as yet no general requirement of fairness in English contract law, although there are some requirements as to fairness that derive (1) from statutory employment protection; (2) from the implied term as to trust and confidence in employment contracts (and, outside the context of this discussion, that arise in statutory consumer law).