Help needed about giving notice to an employer!!! URGENT

LegacyUser · 12-05-2004 7:41am #1

Hi Everyone,

I really need help on this matter. I only have around 30 mins before i have to go up and see my booss so we can talk about this but i dont know where i stand in this and what it means for me!?!! Anyone who can help me on this are the coolest person(s) in the world and have my sincere thanks.

I have worked form my employer for the last 15 months. It's a big company, nice building, crappy career and most of the people here are assholes... this is why i have decided to leave.... it's been a great learning curve but i need something different. (preferably without assholes) Anyway, i have NOT signed a contract, when i gave my notice in i gave 2 weeks, this is my last week and my employer wants me to give 4 weeks (as per the contract i never signed and never got). I have to go for a meeting shortly and i need to know where i stand with this, do i have to sign it? do i still have to give 4 weeks? is it illegal not to sign a contract etc?

Many thanks in advance!!!!

Asok · 12-05-2004 7:44am

Do you need a reference off these people it might be worth just grining and bearing the extra two weeks.

LegacyUser · 12-05-2004 7:55am

well thats it, all they will give me for a reference is a "yes, this person was employed by us on this date to this date and there title was"... Apprently it's not company policy to give a decent ref... So im really unsre if i want to give another 2 weeks...

LegacyUser · 12-05-2004 8:05am

not sure if my last reply was accepted, basically my current employer will only verify my emloyment and nothing else. So looking at it from that perspective there isnt much point me working the 4 weeks?

fitz · 12-05-2004 8:37am

Well, fact is that if the employer doesn't furnish you with a contract within 2 months of your start date as a full-time worker, they're in breach of employment law, so that's something you could leverage against them if they get nasty.
Check it out here:
http://www.bailii.org/ie/legis/num_act/toea1994361/s3.html

But I would try and talk around this.
What kind of position is it?
Depending on that, there are various ways to approach this...

LegacyUser · 12-05-2004 8:56am

not sure why my replys arent getting through?! My current employer will only verify my employment with them as a ref so that why im not sure whether i should give them the 4 weeks!. The position im in at the moment is tech support!

ssh · 12-05-2004 9:14am

Well just ask them to produce a copy of the contract. That'll shut them up.

Sleipnir · 12-05-2004 9:24am

Only the employer has to sign the contract, the employee doesn't.
That doesn't mean the contract is not binding though.

From Oasis.
"The statement of the terms within the contract must be signed and dated by the employer; the employee is not required to sign it. The employer must retain a copy of the contract during the period of the employee's employment and up to one year after it ceases."

From the link given above.

4) A statement furnished by an employer under subsection (1) shall be signed
and dated by or on behalf of the employer.

fitz · 12-05-2004 9:40am

You're reading it wrong.
The statement (or contract) has to be "furnished"
ie. it has to be presented to the employee.
It's not enough for them to just sign it, it has comply with subsection (1) of the Act.
The section you are quoting is just saying that the employee has to be provided with a contract to sign, and that contract has to be signed and dated by the employer.
If the employee was to sign and the employer was to forget to sign and date it, it's not a valid, legally binding contract.

A contract is an agreement between two parties.
If one party hasn't received and signed the contract, verifying that they agree to the terms of the agreement, then it's not legally binding.

I agree, ask them to give you a photocopy of the contract with your signature on it.
If they can't provide it, you've given enough notice.
Tell them you have made committments that you cannot pull out of, and that in the absence of a contract, you assumed that 2 weeks was enough notice, and that you didn't think that your relationship with them was such that they would hold you back.

RicardoSmith · 12-05-2004 9:41am

Originally posted by mr_dj
not sure if my last reply was accepted, basically my current employer will only verify my emloyment and nothing else. So looking at it from that perspective there isnt much point me working the 4 weeks?

It pretty standard to give a pretty bland reference these days. They can't give you a bad reference anyway. Personally the couple of times I've had to do it I never found working my notice to be worth it. Somewhere has to be pretty shortsighted to make you work it.

Sleipnir · 12-05-2004 9:48am

Originally posted by fitz
You're reading it wrong.
The statement (or contract) has to be "furnished"
ie. it has to be presented to the employee.
It's not enough for them to just sign it and it's legally binding.
A contract is an agreement between two parties.
If one party hasn't received and signed the contract, verifying that they agree to the terms of the agreement, then it's not legally binding.

Thanks but I do understand the word 'furnished' in this context.
The point is, the employee is not required to sign the contract.

If the contract would not be legally binding, as one party is not required to sign it, why is it called a contract?
So what you're saying is, as the employee does not have to sign the contract he does not have to abide by the terms of his employment?
Great, we can all take 3 hours for lunch and leave without giving notice.

The fact that he has taken up employment (in this case for 15 months) then he has agreed to the terms of employment as laid out and presented to him.

Ryvita · 12-05-2004 9:49am

If you have no contract you only have to give a weeks notice.

http://www.oasis.gov.ie

These guys sound like complete cowboys. You should really make a complaint about them as that's really not on. Have they been paying tax for you?

fitz · 12-05-2004 9:54am

Rubbish.
It's the employers legal responsibility to ensure that the contract is signed.
The Act is there to ensure that employers do this.

Mr_DJ could actually make a legal complaint against this company under the Act because they haven't complied and provided a contract, until 6 months after termination of his employment with them.

Sleipnir, you're wrong.
A contract is an agreement between too parties which is legally binding.
How do you verify that both have agreed if only one signs?
There is no legal recourse unless both have signed to verify that all terms of the contract are acceptable.
One party signing is not enough.

Ryvita · 12-05-2004 9:56am

Yeah I would have thought that would have been basic enough really. If there is no contract there are rules in place see the oasis site (link above).

mr_dj, let us know how you get on?

Mr Dj · 12-05-2004 9:58am

you poeple rock!!! thanks so much for helping me out here!. Suprisngly i work for a well know computer company... and when i say well known i mean most of you right now are problably using their equipment. As far as i know this is only a one off, all of the people i work with or have worked with all have contracts except me. A contract was never presented to me so i didnt sign one. Surely i would have to sign somehting to make it legally binding? Yeah they have been paying tax for me as it was only the other month i recieved a p60 which looked upto scratch.

Mr Dj · 12-05-2004 10:12am

just one more thing.... if im asked to sign a contract when i go up.... do i have to do it or can i refuse?

Sleipnir · 12-05-2004 10:17am

Originally posted by fitz
A contract is an agreement between too parties which is legally binding.
How do you verify that both have agreed if only one signs?
There is no legal recourse unless both have signed to verify that all terms of the contract are acceptable.
One party signing is not enough.

I say again, why is it called a contract if only one party is required, by law, to sign it?

"The statement of the terms within the contract must be signed and dated by the employer; the employee is not required to sign it."

So how is it ever a contract then?

Ryvita · 12-05-2004 10:19am

Originally posted by Mr Dj
just one more thing.... if im asked to sign a contract when i go up.... do i have to do it or can i refuse?

You don't have to sign anything there and then. Tell them you'd like to take it with you to read first. Then take it to a sollicitor or someone who knows.

Don't sign anything. You don't have to sign anything. It sounds like they know they have really screwed up.

fitz · 12-05-2004 10:22am

Well, since you're leaving, why would you sign a contract committing you to permanent employment with them, probationary period and all that...

Fact is, they slipped up on the contract, they have no legal hold over you at all.

fitz · 12-05-2004 10:31am

Originally posted by Sleipnir
I say again, why is it called a contract if only one party is required, by law, to sign it?

*bangs head against wall*

By law, a contract requires both parties to sign it.

"The statement of the terms within the contract must be signed and dated by the employer; the employee is not required to sign it."

I don't know where you're getting this, but I suspect that it may be an out of context section concerning changes made to an existing contract.

TwoShedsJackson · 12-05-2004 10:41am

Originally posted by Mr Dj
you poeple rock!!! thanks so much for helping me out here!. Suprisngly i work for a well know computer company... and when i say well known i mean most of you right now are problably using their equipment. As far as i know this is only a one off, all of the people i work with or have worked with all have contracts except me. A contract was never presented to me so i didnt sign one. Surely i would have to sign somehting to make it legally binding? Yeah they have been paying tax for me as it was only the other month i recieved a p60 which looked upto scratch.

You don't have to have signed a contract for it to be legally binding, however they do have to have given you a contract stating all the usual stuff.

If you did not sign it but did not complain or object to anything it contained etc., then a court of law will treat that as if you accepted it's terms and conditions.

If, however, you have never even seen a contract from them, they are entirely in the wrong. Sign nothing - if they have any sense they will just let you go if you wish.

RicardoSmith · 12-05-2004 10:41am

Any contract I ever had both parties had to sign it.

Gillo · 12-05-2004 10:42am

without getting tied up in the contract stuff. they sound like a pack of **** to work for, so **** them.
I've always taken the stance of giving them as much notice as possible, but I've been lucky and had good employers. At the end of the day, even if you only give a days notice, whats they worst they can do? fire you.....

Give them two weeks, if thats all you want.

Sleipnir · 12-05-2004 10:43am

It's from Oasis, the government's website

link

Quit with the bang head against wall and answer the question

How can it be a contract if, by law, and according to Oasis and http://www.bailii.org/
only the employer is required to sign it?

By law, a contract requires both parties to sign it.

So is it not a contract then, seeing as only the employer has to sign it?

So we're all working without a binding agreement with our employers?

fitz · 12-05-2004 10:49am

So, if it goes to court and the employee maintains the employer never furnished them with a contract, the employer, if they wanted to, can falsify a contract which they sign and back-date.

How is that legally verifiable.

While the site says it's not required, you walk into a court and try and debate the owness of proof with a judge, see how far you get.

Sleipnir · 12-05-2004 10:54am

Well, try telling your employer that you never signed anything and so are not bound by the terms of employment.

If it did go to court, the law states that the terms of employment do not have to be signed by the employee but if that employee has worked there for 15 months and the employer can produce the terms of employment signed by a representative of the company, it's would not be difficult to argue that the employee was made aware of the terms of employment. It was 15 months, not 15 days.

You never actually answered the question but, fair enough, the point is made.

seamus · 12-05-2004 10:56am

Originally posted by TwoShedsJackson
If you did not sign it but did not complain or object to anything it contained etc., then a court of law will treat that as if you accepted it's terms and conditions.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. If the employee did not see the contract (i.e. it was lost in the post or something), the court may still take a dim view if the employee made no effort to get one or a copy - remember, the employer has their own copy.

Mr Dj - probably too late now, but you should ask to see their copy of the contract, signed and dated by the employer within two months of when you started. If they can't produce this, take your two weeks and go.
If they do, probably best to bite the bullet and take it at 4 weeks.

My impression is that the law is there to protect the employee - the employer states his obligations/intentions and signs it, so he can't change his stance later on. But as TwoSheds says, if the employee doesn't argue with anything in it, that could be interpreted that he's happy/neutral with everything contained therein. A bit like planning permission.

Sleepy · 12-05-2004 11:39am

If the employee isn't required to sign the contract why have I been asked to sign one in any company I've ever worked for?

Of course the contract has to be signed by the employee for it to be a legal document. To try and claim otherwise would no doubt have you thrown out of court for contempt after the judge had stopped laughing.

TwoShedsJackson · 12-05-2004 11:54am

So, if it goes to court and the employee maintains the employer never furnished them with a contract, the employer, if they wanted to, can falsify a contract which they sign and back-date.

How is that legally verifiable.

It isn't - it would probably get down to who has the most money for lawyers at that point. I think there the onus would be on the employer to prove they showed this contract to the employee, which they would not be able to do, that could go either way really.

If the employee isn't required to sign the contract why have I been asked to sign one in any company I've ever worked for?

Of course the contract has to be signed by the employee for it to be a legal document. To try and claim otherwise would no doubt have you thrown out of court for contempt after the judge had stopped laughing.

Sleepy, I have been involved in a situation like this before and believe me the contract does not have to be signed by the employee - it has to have been received and read by the employee, and not objected to by him/her.

You were asked to sign a contract in every company you've worked for because they are obliged to provide you with one, if you don't sign it they could terminate your employment if you're in a probaionary period. If you don't sign it or object to it and it came to a court case later, the court will assume you had no problem with it.

Emmo · 12-05-2004 12:48pm

If you are given the contract and you start doing the job and accepting the wages without signing the thing then your are agreeing to the contract.

Implied contractual obligations are the same no matter if you signed the contract or where just aware of them and didnt voice any concern.

If you didnt get a contract, explain to them that you do have any obligations to the company and give them an address to forward your effects, walk.

Emmo

whosurpaddy · 12-05-2004 1:06pm

Originally posted by seamus
Mr Dj - probably too late now, but you should ask to see their copy of the contract, signed and dated by the employer within two months of when you started. If they can't produce this, take your two weeks and go.
If they do, probably best to bite the bullet and take it at 4 weeks.

why?

as was asked before, even if he had signed a contract, what is the worst the employer can actually do.

i worked in a company before which wanted its full time employees(im talking about normal staff here, not CEO's or anything) to give 3 months notice, you heard that right months not weeks. i dont think one person ever gave 3 months notice while i was there. think about it how can you actually tell a new job you cant start for 3 months.

LegacyUser · 12-05-2004 1:28pm

You have to have a contract signed by both parties in order for it to be made legally binding.
FULL STOP NO DEBATE!!!!!!!
Signed by both parties. THE lenght of time employed does NOT under any circumstances CREATE a contract.
The only notice you have to give is per the employment act, notice is scaled against time employed.
Robert Enwright QC

leeroybrown · 12-05-2004 2:46pm

I looked into this for a friend previously when he wished to leave a job where he hadn't signed a contract.

He had worked less than 13 weeks and as such there was no statutory requirement for him to give any notice. Otherwise I think it's one week.

Oasis:
http://www.oasis.gov.ie/employment/changing_jobs/giving_notice.html?search=employment+contract
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT, 1973 SECTION 6:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA4Y1973S6.html

Most of your terms of employment should have been put in a written contract, but afaik period of notice is one that does not have to be included so long as the documents about it are indicated to the employee and available. Obviously if you didn't agree a period of notice with your employer then statutory applies and you are legally entitled to leave as you have given two weeks.

Gordon · 12-05-2004 2:59pm

Moved from PI

Mr Dj · 13-05-2004 11:51am

Hi Everyone,

Sorry for my delay in replying... I didn't get a chance to go my meeting yesterday with my boss as we kept on missing each other or we had other other prior engagements...

Well I have just finished my meeting now and we have come to an agreement.!!!. My boss said that my file was checked but no contract was there... So as far as I could see the ball is in my court right?... At first she explained that I was almost definitely given a contract or it was sent to me and they had not received it back..(news to me), then she went on saying that she knows there is no proof I had received this contact but still insisted that I still work the 4 weeks... (yeah right im thinking at this point, someone just shot themselves in the foot as she told me she knows there is no proof), I mentioned the info I received from you guys that if there is no contract the is no legal enticement for me to give anything over a week... the fact I had given two weeks notice already means im free to go tomorrow... I could tell she wasn't happy with that but she knew she wasn't able to do anything as she didn't argue it... She then asked was it really what I wanted to do (as in leave tomorrow) and I said I had I already made other arrangements so yes I did. After a pause she agreed and told me she would have to set up a leaving interview then for me tomorrow!!! I was never asked to sign another contract so I just left it at that!.

Thanks to EVERYONE who kindly gave up some of their time to give me some advise. You were all a great help!

Kindest Regards

Mr Dj

seamus · 13-05-2004 11:56am

Glad it worked out well for you man.

Mr Dj · 13-05-2004 4:03pm

Cheers Mate!

Ryvita · 17-05-2004 8:12am

That's great news! Fair play to you.

Help needed about giving notice to an employer!!! ***URGENT***

Comments

Help needed about giving notice to an employer!!! URGENT