Leaving job, notice issue!

adam500

Hi Guys,

So I have received my start for a new job, which is the 18th of August 2014. I gave my notice of two weeks to my current employer yesterday, the 6th of August, but I got a reply from them stating that this is not satisfactory because the notice is short by 2 days, as in my letter of resignation I said my last day will be the 17th from the 6th of August, the day I handed over my letter of notice, yesterday.

So my question is, should I really be bothered that they aren't satisfied with a notice that is short by 2 days. I know its part of my contractual agreement but, realistically what can they do to stop me leaving on the 17th.

I have tired to alter my start date with my new company, but they said the next orientation week is not for another 5 1/2 months, so no way am I going to wait that long.

Any opinion on how I should proceed.

A.500

godtabh

If you don't need the reference then stuff them

conorh91

adam500 wrote: »

realistically what can they do to stop me leaving on the 17th.

Nothing. It's generally wise to maintain good relations with former employers. This is a small city, and references matter.

But realistically speaking, nothing.

wyndham

Are you due any holiday leave?

coylemj

conorh91 wrote: »

It's generally wise to maintain good relations with former employers. This is a small city, and references matter.

Unless the new job is a total car crash, the OP won't be asking the former employer for a reference any time soon so maintaining 'good relations' is at best a romantic fantasy.

adam500

Thanks for the replies, actually I have already received the reference required so I don't need one. Yes the staff turn over is disgraceful, two or three resignations a week in this company.

A.500

GerardKeating

adam500 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, actually I have already received the reference required so I don't need one. Yes the staff turn over is disgraceful, two or three resignations a week in this company.

A.500

Offer to work extra hours/days in the run up to your leaving. They will say no and stick to wanting you around two more days, but at least you can honestly say you tried to engage with them and did try to "help them out"...

conorh91

coylemj wrote: »

Unless the new job is a total car crash, the OP won't be asking the former employer for a reference any time soon so maintaining 'good relations' is at best a romantic fantasy.

Romantic fantasy?

It is not romantic or outlandish to say employment reputation matters.

It's particularly relevant in the professions, e.g. law, where a professional reputation is a vital consideration.

V.W.L 11

can one take a set amount of unpaid leave from a job???i.e they are due to start in a new job soon but want to keep the old job in case the new one ends up as a car crash as one said?

goz83

If you walk into the bosses office wearing nothing more than a sock and tie, then you'll have changed that notice period right down

pablo128

There are lads who have have handed in their notice in my job, only to be unceremoniously fcuked out the door on the spot!:D

doublej

When an employer neglects to meet any of his Statutory or contractural obligations, the whole Employment Rights system can be used to pursue and vindicate the legitimate rights of the worker but it would seem that many posters feel that any duty owed by an employee is not as sacred.

Dee5

Sick Note?

conorh91

doublej wrote: »

When an employer neglects to meet any of his Statutory or contractural obligations, the whole Employment Rights system can be used to pursue and vindicate the legitimate rights of the worker but it would seem that many posters feel that any duty owed by an employee is not as sacred.

This isn't about our opinions. There is simply no effective (incl. cost-effective) or realistic way for the employer to enforce the contract.

Although an employee usually has more options open to him, that reflects the fact that individuals tend to have fewer resources than firms.

Arbiter of Good Taste

I'm in my current job nearly 9 years. If I decided to leave I would be going back to my previous employer (ie the firm that employed me up to 9 years ago) looking for a reference. It's stupid to burn bridges.

adam500

Some of the replies are very true and logical. It's not positive to leave company on bad terms for the sake of two days, so I may just delay my start date or, option two, get sick certs from my GP to cover me, legally wise.

A.500

gozunda

doublej wrote: »

When an employer neglects to meet any of his Statutory or contractural obligations, the whole Employment Rights system can be used to pursue and vindicate the legitimate rights of the worker but it would seem that many posters feel that any duty owed by an employee is not as sacred.

Nice thought however this rarely if ever happens. As the situation currently stand employment rights and employer organisations have actually shifted balance heavily in favour of the employer in many employment situations.

IBEC - one of the largest employer organisation in the country actively influence employment practise and regulation right up to and including legislation that favours employers.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal for example is made up of 3 people: a Chairperson (with legal qualifications) and one representative each, from panels formed by the trade unions and employer organisations.

An employee in dispute with their employer for example over poor working conditions or discrimination must rely for a ruling arrived at from a representative from an 'employer organisation', a representitative from the trade union (many whose members already sit as board members of various employers) and the nominated chairperson.

Take a look at the EAT case log and you will see that the majority of cases taken go against the employee. In addition this magnified by few resources available to the employee and the personal risk in taking any employment case. It is of note that IBEC also represents selected employer members at various EAT with the result that the balance of power falls firmly toward the employer imo. The employee in many of these cases must rely on very meagre resources to undertake any vindication of their employment rights.

In nearly every situation whether EAT / Labour Court or Rights Commissioner the balance of proof falls on the employee. This is especially onerous where employees are from a low paid jobs or have already been made unemployed but may not have the resources to engage suitable representation.

Imo and integral to this is the general attitude "of suck it up" which I have seen openly flouted where an employee seeks general advice on employment issues and problems. I'm my experience there appears to be a considerable number of employers/employer representative members variously active online. I find that it somewhat strange that the forum on 'workplace problems' actually attracts so many in that category But then it it is an open forum and perhaps a useful place to watch for employees who have 'workplace problems'! This often comes as a shock to individuals seeking advice that may not necessarily cast employers in the best light.

For the OP - I would suggest certainly making an offer to do some extra time etc but the end of the day employers at their discretion can dispense with notice periods and some employers march their employees straight out the door once they have submitted their notice. Tbh I wouldn't be overtly worried about it.

doublej

There are a number of fallacies in your posting, or at best, selectivity of facts.

All interested parties including IBEC are consulted by DEJI on Labour related matters, whether this is in respect of transposing European Directives( from which most of our Labour Laws are derived nowadays), or in respect of amending existing legislation whether these amendments are as a result of a need to change forced upon the State by virtue of a successful Constitutional challenge or brought about from changes in work practices that necessitate protection and clarity.
The Irish Trade Union movement has a consultative position, they are also very substantial financial contributors to The Labour Party and have a very strong position to make a case at Cabinet if and when there are issues that they feel affect the welfare of not only their members but as spokespersons for the nations workforce, whether currently employed or not.

Furthermore, you correctly outline the composition of the EAT but place no emphasis on the need for each Determination to be by way of a majority decision.If the outcomes are unfavourable to the petitioner it is because they have failed to persuade the legally trained Independent Chairperson on the Tribunal of the validity of their claim.

It is a presumption in Unfair Dismissal Cases that the dismissal was unfair, it is up to the employer to disprove this.

As this thread was opened by an employee seeking assistance in how they may be able to take up a new job without creating a difficulty for both OP and both his existing and new employer, I don't think that bringing class warfare into the matter is of any value but note the solution being suggested by OP having reflected on the contributions provided, fortunately prior to the anti-employer posting above.
For your information, any employer "marching" a worker towards the door without providing that worker with allograft their Statutory entitlements will find themselves in difficulties; if this does happen then NERA, the National Employment Rights Authority will give assistance and carry out an inspection at the place of employment.NERA have the Statutory Authority to force errant employers to pay any and all entitlements and also can initiate prosecutions if the circumstances warrant.

gozunda

As this is a thread and not a book - It is patentenly evident that I could not digress on every single facet of employer/employee relations and by necessity was therefore 'selective' as you put it.

As to 'fallacies'

It remains that IBEC as a employer representative organisation appear to have a rather strange and inordinate amount of influence in the sphere of govermental consultations. To my recollection there have been a several important employment issues that subject to review by various interests (inc IBEC) only to have the findings effectively quashed by IBEC who did not find them to their liking. As for the trade union movement - outside of the public service many are now dependent on employers (hence board positions with various companies) and are therefore are largely useless as a means of aiding any balance between employer and employees. I think it is fairly evident as to exactly what the labour party have signed up to since they entered into government and it certainly would not appear to match with what many of the grassroots elements would consider beneficial to the conditions of employees potential or otherwise prevalent in the labour market.

The majority ruling detail within the EAT was implied in my post and the evident balance of interest which under the current model does not appear to favour actual employee representation. It is also logical that the chairperson must work in tandem with the other nominated individuals however with what could be perceived as a considerable imbalance of power - the chairpersons hands may be well and truely tied.

I noted very clearly in my post that it "was in nearly all cases" that the balance of proof was on the employee not ALL so yes clearly there are some exceptions to this.

I note that you introduced the old "class warfare' diversion thingy. No one brought in any class war. The matter at hand has to do with balance of power in employee / employer situations and at the moment that lies squarely with the employer and often with considerable inequality of resources available to each of the parties.

I am well aware of notice period practice.
And btw never mentioned that the employee did or did not get their statutary entitlements. I left that as a given and therefore was not an issue. The issue was that many employers do not hold notice periods sacrosanct themselves often dispensing with it altogether when it suits.

So my advice to the OP remains as stated. Unfortunately in the present climate it is a case of working smarter not harder. That is smarter than the employer ...

imitation

You dont have any choice really now, offering the extra hours in a written form i think is the best option. Honestly if they refuse any future referances over 2 days missing notice, then they seem a bit dodgy. Its likely just some hr bullying before you go. Maybe there is somebody else within the company who might give a future reference anyway?

bucketybuck

adam500 wrote: »

Some of the replies are very true and logical. It's not positive to leave company on bad terms for the sake of two days, so I may just delay my start date or, option two, get sick certs from my GP to cover me, legally wise.

A.500

Horrible idea. Your biggest priority right now is making a good impression on your new employers, not worrying about your old ones. First impressions matter and they last, you have agreed a start date and you should stick to it or you run the risk of creating a very bad first impression.

And what for? To appease a company that by the sounds of it doesn't particularly care about their staff anyway? Is it really that important that you leave on good terms? I doubt it. Not to mention that those "good terms" won't count for **** all after a few months anyway, time moves on and you will be nothing but a footnote to them.

Handing in your notice is not asking for permission to leave, its simply notification of intention to leave, the company has no say in the matter. Leave on the date you originally said you would.