question on employee's statutory right to notice

[djones123]

Can anyone please clarify this;

"3 month’s written notice or one week’s notice for each completed year of employment up to a maximum
of 12 weeks' notice whichever is the greater"

What if i have worked for 2 years then do i have to give two weeks notice or 3 months?

[mandos_01]

djones123 said:

Can anyone please clarify this;

"3 month’s written notice or one week’s notice for each completed year of employment up to a maximum
of 12 weeks' notice whichever is the greater"

What if i have worked for 2 years then do i have to give two weeks notice or 3 months?

The key bit is - "whichever is the greater"

Its 3 months

[parabolica]

mandos_01 said:

djones123 said:

Can anyone please clarify this;

"3 month’s written notice or one week’s notice for each completed year of employment up to a maximum
of 12 weeks' notice whichever is the greater"

What if i have worked for 2 years then do i have to give two weeks notice or 3 months?

The key bit is - "whichever is the greater"

Its 3 months

Mandos is correct, however your question is confusing. 3 months notice = 13 weeks (1/4 of the year) which will always be greater than 12 weeks The term you've quoted is used to explain how much notice an employer must serve to an employee; whereas you are asking how much notice you need to give - you will always need to serve 3 months notice.

The '...up to 12 weeks max' is more applicable to people with say 1 months' notice; if they want to leave they have to give 1 months notice to the employer. However if the company wish to make them redundant (for example) and the employee has 2 years service, the company must give them 1 month/4.334 weeks' notice; 8 years of service = 8 weeks notice, 29 years service = max 12 weeks notice.

Edited by parabolica on Monday 21st March 16:54

[djones123]

parabolica said:

Mandos is correct, however your question is confusing. 3 months notice = 13 weeks (1/4 of the year) which will always be greater than 12 weeks The term you've quoted is used to explain how much notice an employer must serve to an employee; whereas you are asking how much notice you need to give - you will always need to serve 3 months notice.

The '...up to 12 weeks max' is more applicable to people with say 1 months' notice; if they want to leave they have to give 1 months notice to the employer. However if the company wish to make them redundant (for example) and the employee has 2 years service, the company must give them 1 month/4.334 weeks' notice; 8 years of service = 8 weeks notice, 29 years service = max 12 weeks notice.

Edited by parabolica on Monday 21st March 16:54

That's how its been mentioned in my contract. I was always under impression that employer and employee both have to give the same amount of notice.

[anonymous-user]

Also, does this provision apply to notice given to you or to notice given by you, or both?

[djones123]

Breadvan72 said:

Also, does this provision apply to notice given to you or to notice given by you, or both?

I think as parabolica mentioned that i have to give 3 month notice to my employer in any situation and employer will have to give me a notice depends on the length of my service.

[anonymous-user]

Tell us what the whole clause says please.

[djones123]

Breadvan72 said:

Tell us what the whole clause says please.

Following successful completion of your probationary period you are required to give and
entitled to receive the following written notice of termination from the Company: 3 month’s
written notice or one week’s notice for each completed year of employment up to a maximum
of 12 weeks' notice whichever is the greater.

The Company may in its absolute discretion end your employment without notice on payment
of an amount equal to your Basic Salary only for the duration of the notice period or part thereof(“Payment in Lieu”). You are not entitled to this Payment in Lieu if the Company does not elect to make this payment.

Nothing in this Statement prevents the Company from terminating your employment summarily or otherwise in the event of any serious breach by you of the terms of your employment or in the event of any act or acts of gross misconduct by you. Further details of gross misconduct can be found in the Staff Handbook.

[anonymous-user]

A clause drafted by an idiot, as three months will always be greater than twelve weeks!

[djones123]

Is three months for both parties?

[boxst]

Breadvan72 said:

A clause drafted by an idiot, as three months will always be greater than twelve weeks!

Yes. But that happens quite a lot it seems. Some of the contracts I've seen are shocking.

[anonymous-user]

People either use cheap lawyers or no lawyers and adopt boilerplate blah.

[djones123]

Is three months for both parties?

[anonymous-user]

Yes.

[djones123]

3 months seems long, would be difficult to find a new job in the future if come to that point. I don't think people negociate notice before starting a new job would look stupid and give wrong impression to new employer. I did reduce my notice period from 2 months to 1 month in my current job before signing my contract.

[Mandat]

djones123 said:

3 months seems long, would be difficult to find a new job in the future if come to that point. I don't think people negociate notice before starting a new job would look stupid and give wrong impression to new employer. I did reduce my notice period from 2 months to 1 month in my current job before signing my contract.

3 months is pretty standard in most professional roles. I've even heard that some senior positions require 6 months notice.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

A clause drafted by an idiot, as three months will always be greater than twelve weeks!

The wording was possibly in a "1 month or........." form originally and was adapted for someone with a 3 month notice period without it being realised that it is now nonsense.

[battered]

djones123 said:

That's how its been mentioned in my contract. I was always under impression that employer and employee both have to give the same amount of notice.

Not necessarily. It can be asymmetrical. I've had 3mo/1mo contracts in the past and one changed from a 3mo/1mo to a 4/3 with my agreement. Everything's negotiable. I do remember once getting a job in the middle of nowhere and asked for 3 mo each way. Got refused, insisted, was told "but even the new sales director doesn't get 3 mo" to which I of course replied "his salary is no business of mine, and nor is his notice period". Got it in the end, after much toing and froing. It doesn't actually cost anything unless you fall out, in which case it's modest money in the scheme of things to get rid of someone who doesn't fit.

IIRC there is case law where you can't hold an employee to more than 1mo notice if they claim that to do so is inhibiting their right to seek employment elsewhere. This is to stop abusive use of excessively long contracts.

[anonymous-user]

There is no such case law. Notice periods of over one month are sometimes enforced by injunction. A very long period of notice or a long fixed term might be unenforceable as a restraint of trade but periods of a few months' notice would not usually be objectionable.