Best time to give notice

LegacyUser

Hey guys,

So I'm finally getting out of a job that I hate. I get along grand with my boss but to say things haven't worked out the way I thought they would would be an understatement.

Anyway, I'm going travelling in October for a year and I'm just wondering what would you guys recommend how long of a notice period I give? My contract says I have to give two weeks but I think that would be pretty rude, especially since I know now when I will be heading off!

Is six weeks too long notice seeing as from the day I give it I'll be 'leaving' if that makes sense to anyone? I just want to the right amount of notice so I am leaving on good terms. Would you say the longer the better or should I be cutting that six weeks in half?

Cheers!

Mrs OBumble

Absolutely don't give it at six weeks ... far too long.

I'd say no more than four weeks, maybe three. That's if you really, really don't want to stick to the terms of your contract. Remember the boss set the contract, so it says what they want.

Bandana boy

If you get on well with your boss I would give him your notice now.
The notice in your contract is the minimum notice required ,as much notice as possible will allow your boss to plan better ,it will be obvious that you did not decide with two weeks notice to go travelling and you never know you could be back after travelling in need of a job or a reference from him.

I'd give it now especially if there's anything big to be handed over

DM addict

I was in a similar situation not so long ago - today is my first day not working, I'm going travelling in a few weeks.

I ended up giving 2months notice, like yourself only required to give two weeks. As I work in a care capacity with a number of clients, I thoguht more notice would be better as it would allow my boss and HR time to get someone in to take over my clients and time for me to give them a proper handover of care routines etc.

Didn't actually end up working out that way, but that's because HR is hopeless.

I'd advise sooner rather than later (a month sounds about right). Providing your boss/colleagues won't be an ass about it, adn that people won't assume you're switched off and not bothering to work.

CavanGal

Depends on the job. I once gave four weeks notice instead of the required two as Christmas fell during the two weeks and I thought my employer wouldnt have time to replace me. Instead, as a thank you to my goodwill, my employer said "Grand, work the two weeks notice and then off with you" which meant I lost out on two weeks pay and learnt a hard lesson. This also happened in another job but in that case I expected it and wanted to leave earlier so that I could get moved to a new apartment where my new job was to be. Only you know your employer and job so I think go with your gut.

Eoin

That's interesting; I wonder if they can actually do that. Would that not mean that they're effectively terminating your employment by giving you an earlier finish date?

Mrs OBumble

Eoin wrote: »

That's interesting; I wonder if they can actually do that. Would that not mean that they're effectively terminating your employment by giving you an earlier finish date?

I don't know the legalities - but if you're only required to give two weeks notice, and you give notice, then they could argue that the two weeks starts then. No idea if it would stand up in court, but most employees wouldn't have the cash and willpower to fight it.

That's why I would never give notice before the contractually required time.

If I like the boss etc, then I might earlier on give a verbal indication that I intend to give notice, but even in this case, nothing in writing until the legally required day. (If the boss thinks that a longer handover is necessary s/he should have put it in the contract to start with.

tatli_lokma

From my experience if you give a set amount of notice and your employer tells you that you can finish sooner than that the employer should pay you 'gardening leave' as it is them reducing your notice. The other option is that they do not accept your notice and instead terminate you - but to do this they would have to have grounds. Of course, if it is a case where you 'enter into a negotiation' about how much leave you need to give, then it is up to you to agree together.

I think best practice would be to either a) let the employee work out their intended notice period or b) let them finish early and pay them for the remainder.

I know if I gave 6 weeks notice (2 more than my contracted notice period) and my employer said 'finish in 1' I would be ensuring I get paid for the other 5 weeks based upon what I said above.

Senecio

Little Ted wrote: »

I know if I gave 6 weeks notice (2 more than my contracted notice period) and my employer said 'finish in 1' I would be ensuring I get paid for the other 5 weeks based upon what I said above.

Your employer would only be required to pay for the other 3 that are in your contract. No more.

tatli_lokma

do you have a link to back that up?

LegacyUser

Thanks for the feedback folks. I think I'll go with four weeks notice, I've known that I will be leaving for a few months now and giving two weeks notice would be bad form imo.

If I was moving jobs then two weeks would be ok but seeing as I've known that I'll be heading for months now I think four weeks is right. Gives them time to advertise for a new job, interview people and then decided on someone. If the new person has to give a couple of weeks notice then they still could be stuck for a week or two after I leave!

Senecio

Little Ted wrote: »

do you have a link to back that up?

No link required. Its in your contract.

If your employer wanted to terminate your employment they are required to give you X weeks notice or in lieu of notice they would be required to pay X weeks of pay. They have no obligation to you beyond the contractual period no matter how long a notice you give them.

Refer to CavanGal's post earlier in the thread for 2 real world examples

tatli_lokma

Senecio wrote: »

No link required. Its in your contract.

If your employer wanted to terminate your employment they are required to give you X weeks notice or in lieu of notice they would be required to pay X weeks of pay. They have no obligation to you beyond the contractual period no matter how long a notice you give them.

Refer to CavanGal's post earlier in the thread for 2 real world examples

Real world examples? Huh

More real world situation is that you offer to give 6 weeks notice, employer says no need 4 is enough. You say no actually I want to continue working for 6. Employer prefers 4. You open a negotiations. Chances are the employee will back down to ensure they don't sour relations with their employer as they want a decent reference.

However if you offer 6 weeks and this is accepted your employer can't then say 1 week or even 1 day later that less is required. If they do they would have to pay you in lieu of the notice period previously agreed. Shortening an agreed notice period without offering PILON is tantamount to terminating employment with no good reason.

In my experience (so another real world example) I have always been rewarded for giving as much notice as possible, usually with a good reference and a continued good relationship with my ex-employer and on one occasion with a bonus when I finished. The only two times that I have not given extra notice were the two jobs where I was generally treated crap and has no concern about a reference. In those cases I negotiated to use my annual leave against my notice period. Once that was accepted the second time I was told that since I clearly wanted to finish sooner than later I could finish at the end of the week. I had given 4 weeks notice, wanting to use 2 weeks hols against it. My contract only required 2 weeks (I was still on probation) but I got paid for all 4 and also got my leave paid out

my point being that there are various 'real world' situations, but that does not make them legal. I tend to agree with Eoin that shortening leave is technically termination. I don't know the legalities, but personally as a hiring manager I would err on the side of caution and just work with the employee rather than risk a potential EAT for the sake of a few weeks wages.

Senecio

So if I gave my employer 26 weeks notice tomorrow (I'm a nice guy!) and it was accepted. Later my employer decides to terminate, do you honestly believe they are obliged to pay the remainder of the 26 weeks? No, their only requirement would be to meet the 12 weeks that is in my contract.

Neither party as any obligation to the other party beyond what is written in the contract. If you choose to give more notice than what is contractually required then you do so of your own accord and at your own risk.

Bandana boy

Senecio wrote: »

So if I gave my employer 26 weeks notice tomorrow (I'm a nice guy!) and it was accepted. Later my employer decides to terminate, do you honestly believe they are obliged to pay the remainder of the 26 weeks? No, their only requirement would be to meet the 12 weeks that is in my contract.

Neither party as any obligation to the other party beyond what is written in the contract. If you choose to give more notice than what is contractually required then you do so of your own accord and at your own risk.

The key word is if your employer decides to terminate
They will need grounds for terminiation to terminiate and employee ,even one on the way out the door.
Assuming your employer has no grounds for termination then notice is the minimum required by both parties.An employer cannot "decide" to shorten the notice you have given them without ramifications ,plus employers are not fools 99.9% of employers will take the added notice given in good faith and not try to abuse it.

tatli_lokma

Bandana boy wrote: »

The key word is if your employer decides to terminate
They will need grounds for terminiation to terminiate and employee ,even one on the way out the door.
Assuming your employer has no grounds for termination then notice is the minimum required by both parties.An employer cannot "decide" to shorten the notice you have given the without ramifications ,plus employers are not fools 99.9% of employers will take the added notice given in good faith and not try to abuse it.

Exactly. And in reality very few people would give 26 weeks notice. The only time I can imagine something like that is if they are moving abroad or something. But for whatever reason if a good employee gives 26 weeks notice I'd accept it as it would give plenty of time to find a replacement and train them in. If the employee was not so good I wouldn't accept 26 weeks and instead would do as mentioned above and negotiate a more realistic period of notice. If I accepted any notice period longer than a few weeks and the employee then started acting the maggot I would terminate them in the same way any employee would be and follow proper disciplinary procedures. If there was only a month or so left on their notice I wouldn't bother and would just give them PILON and save myself the hassle.

For some companies "gardening leave" is unavoidable due to the stipulations in contracts about working for competitors etc. I'm those cases most companies would prefer to have 26 weeks notice and either pay you gardening leave or put you in a different role during your notice than risk you stealing customer information to take to a competitor. Anecdotally there are always the stories of the sales rep who handed in notice and was then put in a room with no computer/phone until their 3 mth notice ended. On occasion such employees have taken cases for constructive dismissal. But as I say I only know of such cases anecdotally via former colleagues who still work in the sales sector, so I don't know how any of the constructive dismissal cases turned out.

whomitconcerns

if you give 26 weeks notice and your employer accepts then it is that exactly..26 weeks notice..any unilateral reduction from your employer would be a termination. Simples. If you contract allows for straight forward termination with 4 weeks notice, then they have to pay you for four weeks. etc

Senecio

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Simples. If you contract allows for straight forward termination with 4 weeks notice, then they have to pay you for four weeks. etc

You've just made my point for me. Your employer is only required to meet what is in your contract. If your contract says 4 weeks, they can pay you 4 weeks and tell you to piss off (once you've given notice). Doesn't matter whether you give them 4, 6, 8, or however many weeks notice.

At no point have I said that they have a right to go below the contract, but they are not obliged to meet your notice period if you choose to provide more notice than is necessary.

tatli_lokma

Senecio wrote: »

You've just made my point for me. Your employer is only required to meet what is in your contract. If your contract says 4 weeks, they can pay you 4 weeks and tell you to piss off (once you've given notice). Doesn't matter whether you give them 4, 6, 8, or however many weeks notice.

At no point have I said that they have a right to go below the contract, but they are not obliged to meet your notice period if you choose to provide more notice than is necessary.

You are missing the point entirely. If you give in excess of your contracted notice period and then you employer wishes to tell you to "piss off" they would have to properly terminate your contract on proper grounds and follow correct procedures. If they don't they are setting themselves up for unfair dismissal. Only then could they give the contracted notice. If you are still doing your job to the level required your employer would have no reason to tell you to PFO.

If your extended notice period is accepted, and your continue to perform, then telling you to PFO in order to avoid paying you for a longer period would leave an employer open to an EAT.

Senecio

Little Ted wrote: »

You are missing the point entirely. If you give in excess of your contracted notice period and then you employer wishes to tell you to "piss off" they would have to properly terminate your contract on proper grounds and follow correct procedures. If they don't they are setting themselves up for unfair dismissal. Only then could they give the contracted notice. If you are still doing your job to the level required your employer would have no reason to tell you to PFO.

If your extended notice period is accepted, and your continue to perform, then telling you to PFO in order to avoid paying you for a longer period would leave an employer open to an EAT.

Once you've handed your notice in, unfair dismissal is not a consideration. As soon as notice is served, your employer only needs to meet the contract.

Simple way to solve this. Hand in your notice and see how you get on.

Best of luck.

tatli_lokma

Senecio wrote: »

Once you've handed your notice in, unfair dismissal is not a consideration.

And once again I ask for a link to back up your claims?

And me handing in my notice would prove nothing as if I gave 26 weeks notice my employer would be delighted to have so much notice so it wouldn't prove anything except my point - that the majority of employers will appreciate a good worker giving the maximum notice possible.