Help understanding contract / notice period wording
Discussion
I have read this through a few times and still not clear, my contract of employment features the following:
'After the satisfactory completion of your probationary period, the period of written notice required from you or the company to terminate your employment shall be one month. The period of written notice required by the company to terminate your employment increases after 4 years of continuous employment, to one week's notice for each year of service, up to a maximum of 12 weeks'
I have been employed for 12 years... I don't think the words 'required by the company' are especially clear, e.g. its not clear to me if I am obligated to provide 12 weeks notice, or if thats a company obligation and I only need to provide 4?
Would greatly appreciate any legal guidance.
Bennno
'After the satisfactory completion of your probationary period, the period of written notice required from you or the company to terminate your employment shall be one month. The period of written notice required by the company to terminate your employment increases after 4 years of continuous employment, to one week's notice for each year of service, up to a maximum of 12 weeks'
I have been employed for 12 years... I don't think the words 'required by the company' are especially clear, e.g. its not clear to me if I am obligated to provide 12 weeks notice, or if thats a company obligation and I only need to provide 4?
Would greatly appreciate any legal guidance.
Bennno
Agree with steve2
Badly written, as no consistency in the manner they previously and clearly specified you and the company. With that said it does state that they require 12 weeks, so that's what you need to give.
"The period of written notice required by the company to terminate your employment increases after 4 years of continuous employment, to one week's notice for each year of service, up to a maximum of 12 weeks'".
If your thinking of leaving then I'd try and negotiate this anyway.
Badly written, as no consistency in the manner they previously and clearly specified you and the company. With that said it does state that they require 12 weeks, so that's what you need to give.
"The period of written notice required by the company to terminate your employment increases after 4 years of continuous employment, to one week's notice for each year of service, up to a maximum of 12 weeks'".
If your thinking of leaving then I'd try and negotiate this anyway.
McCrae1971 said:
Agree with steve2
Badly written, as no consistency in the manner they previously and clearly specified you and the company. With that said it does state that they require 12 weeks, so that's what you need to give.
"The period of written notice required by the company to terminate your employment increases after 4 years of continuous employment, to one week's notice for each year of service, up to a maximum of 12 weeks'".
If your thinking of leaving then I'd try and negotiate this anyway.
The first line says you or the company. The second doesn't. It only refers to the company. Badly written, as no consistency in the manner they previously and clearly specified you and the company. With that said it does state that they require 12 weeks, so that's what you need to give.
"The period of written notice required by the company to terminate your employment increases after 4 years of continuous employment, to one week's notice for each year of service, up to a maximum of 12 weeks'".
If your thinking of leaving then I'd try and negotiate this anyway.
But again the fact that we can't agree probably means lots of others in the company won't either..
Gargamel said:
The first line says you or the company. The second doesn't. It only refers to the company.
But again the fact that we can't agree probably means lots of others in the company won't either..
Although it only mentions the company, it states what the company requires. Completely agree it's open to interpretation due to poor wordingBut again the fact that we can't agree probably means lots of others in the company won't either..
Personally if I was handing in my notice with a contract like this I chance my luck on 4 weeks. Alternatively speak with the HR department to clarify this.
The drafting is poor, but a court or tribunal would have no difficulty in seeing that this means that (on the facts stated) the employee gives one month's notice, and the employer gives twelve weeks notice. Contracts are to be construed in a sensible and real world manner, and without undue literalism.
It is evident here that the employer is seeking to align the contractual position with the statutory position, which gives an employee a week of notice for each complete year of employment.
It is evident here that the employer is seeking to align the contractual position with the statutory position, which gives an employee a week of notice for each complete year of employment.
I hate to disagree with breadvan, who is clearly more experienced in employment law than I am, however the wording seems clear enough to me, they require an additional weeks notice from you for every year of employment beyond 4 years. If you have been employed 12 years you need to give 12 weeks notice, which seems to be what you want anyway.
rsbmw said:
I hate to disagree with breadvan, who is clearly more experienced in employment law than I am, however the wording seems clear enough to me, they require an additional weeks notice from you for every year of employment beyond 4 years. If you have been employed 12 years you need to give 12 weeks notice, which seems to be what you want anyway.
On the assumption that you are a lawyer, I say dubia in meliorem partem interpretari debent.Breadvan72 said:
A notice requirement is a minimum. You are free to give more notice than you have to.
So, to err on the side of caution I provided 12 weeks notice, my employer spent 2.5 weeks attempting to talk me out of leaving, throughout this process I stood firm and this week was put on garden leave. Having been put on garden leave I then had a call to suggest they only need 4 weeks notice, so they would only pay for me and release me in a week and a half based on contractual notice of 4 weeks.... I went back and said I had provided 12 weeks notice and willing to work 12 weeks etc as new job does not start until then. I have over 12 years service, don't want an unpaid / out of work block of 8 weeks. Would appreciate advice, is there any risk I would be in breach for providing too much notice, are they in a position to put me on garden leave and unilaterally reduce the notice period provided? Greatly appreciate guidance, have asked new employer if they might take me sooner - but they are reviewing currently etc. If I go earlier then it also messes with pre booked and agreed holiday etc.
Bennno
There is no question of you having broken the contract. You gave the notice required by your contract (four weeks) but also a bit more, as you were free to do . There is notice in terms of what the contract requires, and notice of an actual date of leaving. If the employer now seeks to end the contract early then the employer will in effect be dismissing you in breach of contract. This would immediately free you of obligations owed to the employer, including any obligations as to garden leave and as to post termination covenants (but not your enduring obligations as to confidential information). You would be entitled to a modest sum in damages - the amount of net pay for the balance of your notice period. As you have more than two years service you would also have a claim for unfair dismissal, entitling you to a small amount of compensation equivalent to a redundancy payment plus some extra bits and bobs.
The employer is in the wrong. You should hang tough and suggest that if the employer seeks early termination without your agreement to that, then it does so at risk.
The employer is in the wrong. You should hang tough and suggest that if the employer seeks early termination without your agreement to that, then it does so at risk.
rsbmw said:
I hate to disagree with breadvan, who is clearly more experienced in employment law than I am, however the wording seems clear enough to me, they require an additional weeks notice from you for every year of employment beyond 4 years. If you have been employed 12 years you need to give 12 weeks notice, which seems to be what you want anyway.
It now appears that the employer reads the contract in the same way that I do. The employer says that it only needs four weeks notice from the OP. Of course a Court could later say that the employer is wrong (making me wrong too and making you right), but that issue is now unlikely to be tested in court. Any dispute that flows from the latest news will be on different issues. Breadvan72 said:
There is no question of you having broken the contract. You gave the notice required by your contract (four weeks) but also a bit more, as you were free to do . There is notice in terms of what the contract requires, and notice of an actual date of leaving. If the employer now seeks to end the contract early then the employer will in effect be dismissing you in breach of contract. This would immediately free you of obligations owed to the employer, including any obligations as to garden leave and as to post termination covenants (but not your enduring obligations as to confidential information). You would be entitled to a modest sum in damages - the amount of net pay for the balance of your notice period. As you have more than two years service you would also have a claim for unfair dismissal, entitling you to a small amount of compensation equivalent to a redundancy payment plus some extra bits and bobs.
The employer is in the wrong. You should hang tough and suggest that if the employer seeks early termination without your agreement to that, then it does so at risk.
Brilliant news, thank you very much for reassurance - much appreciated.The employer is in the wrong. You should hang tough and suggest that if the employer seeks early termination without your agreement to that, then it does so at risk.
Absent gross misconduct on your part, the employer can only lawfully dismiss you on twelve weeks notice. If it dismissed you with fewer than twelve weeks notice, the dismissal would be wrongful. Wrongful dismissal is a common law concept and means dismissal in breach of contract. Unfair dismissal is a statutory concept and means (in summary) unreasonable dismissal.
If wrongfully dismissed, your claim would be limited to the remaining period of your own notice, as the court would assess damages on the basis of what would have happened if not for the wrongful dismissal. If unfairly dismissed, you would be able to claim what is called a basic award (in effect the same as a redundancy payment) plus (usually) some money to reflect loss of accrued employment protection rights (but query that as you were leaving anyway). No compo beyond that because no loss of earnings beyond notice period because you were leaving anyway.
If wrongfully dismissed, your claim would be limited to the remaining period of your own notice, as the court would assess damages on the basis of what would have happened if not for the wrongful dismissal. If unfairly dismissed, you would be able to claim what is called a basic award (in effect the same as a redundancy payment) plus (usually) some money to reflect loss of accrued employment protection rights (but query that as you were leaving anyway). No compo beyond that because no loss of earnings beyond notice period because you were leaving anyway.
Breadvan72 said:
There is no question of you having broken the contract. You gave the notice required by your contract (four weeks) but also a bit more, as you were free to do . There is notice in terms of what the contract requires, and notice of an actual date of leaving. If the employer now seeks to end the contract early then the employer will in effect be dismissing you in breach of contract. This would immediately free you of obligations owed to the employer, including any obligations as to garden leave and as to post termination covenants (but not your enduring obligations as to confidential information). You would be entitled to a modest sum in damages - the amount of net pay for the balance of your notice period. As you have more than two years service you would also have a claim for unfair dismissal, entitling you to a small amount of compensation equivalent to a redundancy payment plus some extra bits and bobs.
The employer is in the wrong. You should hang tough and suggest that if the employer seeks early termination without your agreement to that, then it does so at risk.
As someone who is sadly in the position at the moment of having my employer breach my contract but whom is still expected to carry out certain tasks for them (I'm not, I'm refusing) thats good to know, thank you.The employer is in the wrong. You should hang tough and suggest that if the employer seeks early termination without your agreement to that, then it does so at risk.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff