Being let go earlier than expected

LegacyUser

Hi all,

I have to anon for this one! A few weeks ago I was offered another job which I happily accepted. It is written in my current contract that I must give 2 months notice. So handed in my notice a few weeks ago which would mean my last day was early sept. But now my boss has come back to say that due to the next few weeks being slow in the office, he is going to make my last day is the end of July! The new company have not agreed for me to start so early as I told them I had to give 2 months notice so now I'm faced with a month without work. If I have to give my boss 2 months notice, wouldn't that mean that I should get the same in return? If he has to let me go early due to "no work" do I deserve compensation for the weeks remaining in my notice period? I'm not technically being made redundant as I have handed in my notice! As much as I hate my current job and want to get out of there asap, I can't go for a month without pay.

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks

dudara

My understanding is that he has to pay you for the length of the notice period, even if you are not working. I'm open to correction though.

bbam

dudara wrote: »

My understanding is that he has to pay you for the length of the notice period, even if you are not working. I'm open to correction though.

That would be correct...
Some employeers just don't want folks hanging round on long notice periods but they must pay for the privelege of letting you go... Otherwise you can ask to work on and get paid.

Eoin

feeling cheated wrote: »

If I have to give my boss 2 months notice, wouldn't that mean that I should get the same in return?

It depends on what your contract says - some companies have to give less notice than the employees do. But that's not relevant in this case as you have given your two months notice. If they want you to leave early, then they still have to pay you.

castie

From what Ive been hearing.

If you hand in your 2 month notice.

They can then serve you with their notice ( i.e 2 weeks )

and they only have to pay you for the two weeks and not your notice.

Eoin

I really, really hope that's totally illegal.

looksee

castie wrote: »

From what Ive been hearing.

If you hand in your 2 month notice.

They can then serve you with their notice ( i.e 2 weeks )

and they only have to pay you for the two weeks and not your notice.

Surely you can't have 2 months notice on one side and 2 weeks on the other? Certainly not without it being in the contract, which evidently it wasn't. What would be the point of asking for 2 months in the first place if they are going to do that?

And can you fire someone after they have resigned?

Eoin

looksee wrote: »

Surely you can't have 2 months notice on one side and 2 weeks on the other? Certainly not without it being in the contract, which evidently it wasn't. What would be the point of asking for 2 months in the first place if they are going to do that?

And can you fire someone after they have resigned?

You can definitely have different notice periods, once it's in the contract.

I don't see why you can't fire someone after they resign - but unless it was gross misconduct, meaning an instant dismissal, there wouldn't be much point. Plus it would have to be absolutely air tight.

gerrycollins

they have to pay you for the period of notice as per your contract. the old "it slow anyways" is a joke

looksee

eoin wrote: »

You can definitely have different notice periods, once it's in the contract.

I don't see why you can't fire someone after they resign - but unless it was gross misconduct, meaning an instant dismissal, there wouldn't be much point. Plus it would have to be absolutely air tight.

If you fire someone just because they have resigned they could claim wrongful dismissal - who wants 'dismissed' on their record rather than resigned.

If they are making you redundant, does it matter that you have handed in your notice? Why would you not be entitled to redundancy payment?

The different notice periods are one thing if they decide to give you notice, and give you 2 weeks, but I dont see how you can supercede the worker's 2 months with their 2 weeks.

Why not get onto the new firm and ask if it would be any help to them if you started earlier?

Eoin

looksee wrote: »

If you fire someone just because they have resigned they could claim wrongful dismissal - who wants 'dismissed' on their record rather than resigned.

I know, I was saying they would have to make it air tight.

looksee wrote: »

If they are making you redundant, does it matter that you have handed in your notice? Why would you not be entitled to redundancy payment?

Because you've not been made redundant - you've resigned.

edanto

On the original question - it completely depends on what it says in the contract. It would be highly unusual for there to be unequal notice periods, i.e. that the employee has to give two months, but the employer can give a different period.

Can you post up that part of your contract? (termination)