Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Notice for working less than a month?

  • 19-02-2012 2:20pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 145 ✭✭


    Hi everyone. I'm just wondering how much notice I have to give if I'm working for a place for less than one month? I have a contract where I have to give four weeks notice but this seems like too much considering I'm only there a few weeks. Its just my situation has changed and I need to get out of it asap. Thanks.


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Your employer has no statutory right to notice until you have been in the position for 13 weeks. After that time, your employer has a statutory right to 1 week's notice.

    Now I know that minimum notice periods can be lengthened contractually after 13 weeks of service, but can they be created by a contract when there is a statutory provision that you are not required to give notice, i.e can that statutory provision be waived? I don't think so.

    In any event, I don't think this is going to be a serious problem for you. It may affect any reference you wish to get from your company, but it shouldn't realistically affect you in a material way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 145 ✭✭Mossyman


    Thanks for your quick reply. So do you think that it would be ok then in this situation to email them today saying that I am finished and not go in tomorrow? I want to do it the right way and will work whatever length is right but just want to be doubly sure of how much is needed.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    later12 wrote: »
    Now I know that minimum notice periods can be lengthened contractually after 13 weeks of service, but can they be created by a contract when there is a statutory provision that you are not required to give notice, i.e can that statutory provision be waived? I don't think so.

    Statutory periods apply when none have been specified in the contract. If they are specified in the contract, then they take precedence and have nothing to do with 13 weeks or any other time period. The exception is if the contract specifies a shorter notice period than what's set out by law.
    Mossyman wrote:
    So do you think that it would be ok then in this situation to email them today saying that I am finished and not go in tomorrow?

    That would be very unprofessional IMO. You've agreed to 4 weeks notice. Go in, explain the situation and ask that the notice period is mutually waived.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,325 ✭✭✭Bandana boy


    Never ever quit a job by e-mail, text, or voice mail.
    Go in and do it face to face.
    If you have only been there a couple of weeks they will likely let you leave same day.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Eoin wrote: »
    Statutory periods apply when none have been specified in the contract. If they are specified in the contract, then they take precedence a
    Well that's not true... a statutory provision cannot always be waived, for one thing.

    Is there any case law to back up your suggestion that the statutory provisions, applying to <13 wks employees, can be amended (in fact, reversed) by contract?

    I would be very surprised if it were so.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    later12 wrote: »
    Well that's not true... a statutory provision cannot always be waived, for one thing.
    The statutory provision specifies the minimum notice period, not the actual notice period.

    Your contract can specify any notice period provided that it is greater than the minimum.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    later12 wrote: »
    Well that's not true... a statutory provision cannot always be waived, for one thing.

    Is there any case law to back up your suggestion that the statutory provisions, applying to <13 wks employees, can be amended (in fact, reversed) by contract?

    I would be very surprised if it were so.

    They're not being waived, they are being lengthened. It's not a right to quit with one week's notice if you're there under 13 weeks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Eoin wrote: »
    They're not being waived, they are being lengthened. .
    No it is not being lengthened, you cannot lengthen a 0; it is being created quite contrary to what is provided for in the legislation.

    Therefore, I think there is a legitimate question as to the validity of any contractual provision that attempts to waive the absolute freedom from notice provision in the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Acts.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    Do you have a link for that? I can't see anything that says a contract can't lengthen a notice period.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Two points: I'm not pontificating that this is the case: if you read my posts I'm making it clear that I'm questioning the legitimacy of minimum notice periods for <13 weeks employees, and expressing doubt that they could be held to be valid.

    Secondly, as I said, this matter is not about lengthening a notice period. This matter is about creating a notice period where there is a provision that freedom from notice period is an absolute. It is from this distinction that my doubt about the validity of contractual notice provisions is derived.

    i don't know of any case law which clears up this issue, and in the absence of any such evidence, I don't believe that you can really know that any such contractual provision is binding on an employee without that having been tested, given the legitimate doubt that I think exists in the acts.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    later12 wrote: »
    Secondly, as I said, this matter is not about lengthening a notice period. This matter is about creating a notice period where there is a provision that freedom from notice period is an absolute.
    There is no provision in law that provides freedom from a notice period as absolute.
    The law simply states what the minimum notice required is.

    The law doesn't state that "No notice is required".

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1973/en/act/pub/0004/sec0006.html#sec6

    What it actually does is set out that where you have been employed for 13 weeks, the employer is entitled to at least one week's notice.

    Standard contract law allows for a greater notice period, however breach of the longer notice period is a civil issue, not an offence.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    seamus wrote: »
    There is no provision in law that provides freedom from a notice period as absolute.
    The law simply states what the minimum notice required is.

    The law doesn't state that "No notice is required".
    We are dealing here with a case concerning an employee of less than 13 weeks' employment. Reference to employees of more than 13 weeks standing is essentially irrelevant.

    Under the statutory legislation, there is no notice period required of such an employee as the OP. The implication here is that the employee enjoys freedom from any requirement to provide notice in respect of such provisions.

    In that sense, there is a freedom from notice. And this is absolute - a 0.

    The question arises as to whether this freedom can be revoked. There is no question of lengthening when you deal in 0's, but creating. And creating any such requirement suggests that the preceding provision be revoked. That word should set off alarm bells when dealing with statutory provisions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    later12 wrote: »
    Under the statutory legislation, there is no notice period required of such an employee as the OP. The implication here is that the employee enjoys freedom from any requirement to provide notice in respect of such provisions.
    This is just incorrect. The law does not state what you assert above.

    In a legal sense, the law does not state that "no notice period is required of such an employee".

    The law is silent on the matter of notice periods when the employee has less than 13 weeks service.

    That's the point - where the law is silent, any provision in a contract has effect. You assert that notice in a contract is revoking a freedom, but you've failed to demonstrate where that freedom is created.

    If you can find a law which states that "An employee with less than 13 weeks service is not required to provide notice", then you have a point. But no such law exists.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    seamus wrote: »
    This is just incorrect. The law does not state what you assert above.
    That's why I refer to an implication, and not a specific statement. Rights can perfectly legitimately be enjoyed by implication; I find your suggestion that an implied right is overruled by a private contractual agreement to be really surprising. Where are you getting this idea?


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    later12 wrote: »
    That's why I refer to an implication, and not a specific statement. Rights can perfectly legitimately be enjoyed by implication; I find your suggestion that an implied right is overruled by a private contractual agreement to be really surprising. Where are you getting this idea?
    An implied right only exists where a court has deemed it so.

    In the absence of any relevant case law, there is no "implied right" here.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    I said a few posts ago that this needs to be tested in the absence of any relevant case law.

    later12 wrote: »
    i don't know of any case law which clears up this issue, and in the absence of any such evidence, I don't believe that you can really know that any such contractual provision is binding on an employee without that having been tested, given the legitimate doubt that I think exists in the acts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    later12 wrote: »
    I said a few posts ago that this needs to be tested in the absence of any relevant case law.
    I understand that. But as it stands, the notice period in a contract stands unless the employee can prove that there is an implied right which exempts them from it.

    The contract is considered valid unless it breaches any existing laws or rulings.

    So it's up to the employee to challenge the notice period in the contract, it's not up to the employer to assert that it's valid.

    In other words, in the case of a civil suit it would be up to the employee to prove that an implied right exists - it would not be up to the employer to prove that it doesn't exist. An implied right by definition doesn't exist until it's been declared.

    Which means that in the legal sense, the notice period is legally binding until proven otherwise.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Nobody is suggesting that the onus is on the employer to establish the validity of the contract... you're coming out with a series of basic facts like the employee cannot be sure of his implied rights until they are held to exist by the court...

    My sole point is that a legitimate question appears to arise as to the validity of the contractual provisions which the OP has outlined in respect of employees with less than thirteen weeks' service. Unless you are denying this altogether, I really have no idea what your point is. I'm not seeing any suggestions throughout the thread to which the points you are raising would appear relevant.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    later12 wrote: »
    My sole point is that a legitimate question appears to arise as to the validity of the contractual provisions which the OP has outlined in respect of employees with less than thirteen weeks' service.
    This is exactly what I've been talking about.

    You may say that there's a valid question to be asked in general about such notice periods.

    However, in a legal sense there is no question in the OP's case as to the validity of the contract which he signed because the contract is not in breach of any known law or ruling.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    seamus wrote: »
    You may say that there's a valid question to be asked in general about such notice periods.

    However, in a legal sense there is no question in the OP's case as to the validity of the contract which he signed because the contract is not in breach of any known law or ruling.
    If any party to a contract is concerned about the validity of some aspect of that contract in light of what appears may be a contradiction to any implied right in the statutory legislation, and they decide to establish the legal position in court, then I believe it may be said that there is a question about the matter in a legal sense :rolleyes:

    OP please disregard this pedantry. Enjoy your new position.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement