Employment contract question

[Jopo1]

Hi everyone, hope you are all well.

My partner has verbally accepted a new job starting January, but there's some discrepancy in the contract which is concerning and I wanted to get some advice it.

There's actually 2 parts to the contract: a letter, and writtem statement of particulars

The letter states the notice period of 3m as agreed between my OH and his new boss. This document is meant to be signed by OH and returned as part of the contract.

The written statement of particulars is closer to what I would recognise as a contract of employment and requires OH's signature. It doesn't mention the 3m notice period but does incl this:

"Notice:
Details of your entitlement to notice from the company are as follows:"

followed by a table that states 1 week notice if service is under 2 years, and it increases a week at a time up to 12 weeks

He has queried this with the HR person who says in an email "This relates to a redundancy situation. Notice on either side is equal, 3 months"

As we can't imagine another situation where they might want to let him go, then basically it seems there's 1 notice period for him, and another for them. He has no protection in case of redundancy. (There's nothing in the contract about gross negligence permitting them to sack staff, although that might come with a set of rules he has to sign after he's started)

He has said to his new boss this is quite a concern and a big sticking point. He's unsure whether to pull out based on this alone, financially we will be fine. IN fact financially we will be fine if he loses his job with a week's notice, but it won't be fine if he wants to leave and has to give 3m notice!

What would you do?

Thank you!

Jopo1

[dealtn]

The letter states the notice period of 3m as agreed between my OH and his new boss...

...it won't be fine if he wants to leave and has to give 3m notice!

I'm confused.

The first bit suggests your OH has agreed, and presumably happy with 3m. The second explicitly states it isn't fine to have to give 3m.

[Jopo1]

I'm confused.

The first bit suggests your OH has agreed, and presumably happy with 3m. The second explicitly states it isn't fine to have to give 3m.

He's fine to accept 3m notice if the employer also has to give 3m notice. What he's not fine with is not having reciprocal protection from a 3m notice period.

Jopo1

[AsleepInYorkshire]

I'm confused.

The first bit suggests your OH has agreed, and presumably happy with 3m. The second explicitly states it isn't fine to have to give 3m.

He's fine to accept 3m notice if the employer also has to give 3m notice. What he's not fine with is not having reciprocal protection from a 3m notice period.

Jopo1

Options

1. Accept, sign and "hope" - element of risk is your partners to bear
2. Reject, do not move to new position
3. Renegotiate redundancy cover to start at 1 months cover - element of risk diminished

I'd suggest you do a bit of work in the background and check how stable the new company is financially. Companies house will give you some basic information. But, as I've just found out to my ultimate frustration the only way to find out just how well a company is, is from the inside. And all too often the green grass that is painted by those hosting the interview isn't quite that lush. Cynical I know.

AiY

[Jopo1]

AiY totally agree, risk of redundancy is higher than average in most companies right now anyway.

Jopo1

[AsleepInYorkshire]

AiY totally agree, risk of redundancy is higher than average in most companies right now anyway.

Jopo1

Whoops I forgot to say ... some companies will add some wording similar to the following ...

"Signed as a Deed".

Don't sign it or cross out the wording and sign under witness that it has been removed

AiY

[chas49]

The notice periods set out in the particulars of employment described are the statutory minimum requirement (https://archive.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4096). In particular , note:

Employees must give their employer a minimum of one week's notice once they have worked for one month. This minimum is unaffected by longer service.

Of course a contract can agree longer notice periods for both/either side - but that would need to be spelled out explicitly in order to override the presumption that the terms are as set out in the particulars.

The extent to which the OP's partner can push this to get a written statement of what was said at interview might depend on how much s/he wants the job and how much the employer wants them....

[dealtn]

I'm confused.

The first bit suggests your OH has agreed, and presumably happy with 3m. The second explicitly states it isn't fine to have to give 3m.

He's fine to accept 3m notice if the employer also has to give 3m notice. What he's not fine with is not having reciprocal protection from a 3m notice period.

Jopo1

Don't sign it then if that reciprocity is important to him.

[didds]

Not really a legal answer, but may sort of be a legal question...

If in the event of him giving the "required" three months notice, after one month he just stopped going to work, what exactly are they going to do - sack him from the job he has effectively quit anyway??

didds

[gryffron]

If in the event of him giving the "required" three months notice, after one month he just stopped going to work, what exactly are they going to do - sack him from the job he has effectively quit anyway??

IN THEORY it's a breach of contract. So they could sue him to recover incidental costs incurred by his failure to give adequate notice. Contractor cover, loss of earnings etc. In practice this never happens. Partly because it's hard to prove what the additional costs really are. But mostly because the disruption caused by disgruntled employees hanging around greatly exceeds the cost of just letting them walk. And being seen to sue your own staff doesn't help the morale of remaining employees much either.

Might ruin your reference though. As it is a verifiable fact they are allowed to include it.

I've actually done this. Had just finished a project when I was offered another job. Wasn't worth me starting anything new. The new employer wanted me to start real quick. So I approached the personnel manager and a couple of directors. All of whom ummed and arred and refused to make a decision. So I made the decision for them and told them I was leaving at the end of the week. And I did.

It's important to understand that you CAN negotiate a contract of employment. You don't have to accept it. I got GEC-Plessey to change their CoE for me cos it had some terms I didn't like. So it can be done. You don't have to accept their opening offer.

Gryff

[didds]

all good points gryff. Though as you say suing is a bit of a desperate call as the employer has to try to mitigate losses anyway, which could jusy mean more work for the remainigh staff and altering other deadliens schedules - which could meann in that short term of 2 months there is not actual financial cost, just hassle. There is potentially plenty of precedent existing that such short term "£cover" happens etc - employees that end up in hospital after a car crash etc as an example. I doubt many employers in such circumstances go out and get immediate cover - ceratyinly outsiode the hopsitality/arts sector maybe - which i perceive isnt the case of the OP.

As for references - yes. potentially the biggest impact. But if one has already got a new position to go to - or is seeking retirement, or a move abroad etc etc that may not even be important.

so bascially the only likely threat is a poor reference.

[chas49]

I'm not sure that the only risk is a 'poor reference'.

If a person (P) decides to leave an employment without giving the contracted notice, the existing employer (E) might reflect this in a reference. Assuming that P is only leaving because s/he has already got an offer of employment from a new employer (N), it might be reasonable to assume that N's offer will be subject to references.

P might attempt to mitigate this by explaining to N that s/he is leaving early for whatever reasons. N might take the view that if P is prepared to breach their contract with E, they might well do the same with N.

Much better to ensure the right notice terms are agreed before 'signing' I think

[Jopo1]

Thank you everyone! I had a chat with Melonfool who suggested that this is becoming a new standard, where the employer reduces its risk in case of redundancy. She also confirmed that it is very unlikely he will be sued should he leave in under 3m, especially when he hasn't been there very long.

My OH has been self employed for nearly 30 years and I've been self employed for 10 years, so it's a while since either of us have seen what contracts look like! All of mine were for big American multinationals so very detailed and full of clauses so my experience is quite limited really.

Hope you all had a lovely christmas, and Happy New Year to you!

Jopo1