Not working notice period

Torres999

Hi there

I have a 3 month notice period and was unable to negotiate this down with my employer. I have been treated badly so I don’t really have any loyalty to them and have only worked there for 10 months.

Can I just leave after 2 months instead of 3? What are the chances that I would be sued? My boss is a psychopath so could just sue me for the sake of it.

_Brian

It will be fine.
Pass them a letter stating your last date you are working.

As for being sued.
To win a case they would need substantial evidence to demonstrate you specifically are central to the business and that it will suffer significantly by you not remaining on after the statutory notice period set out in legislation.

I think offering to stay two months is generous. Personally I’d be thinking 4 weeks tops.

antix80

Go on unpaid sick leave. He'll never see you again.

lickalot

Just do a month, unless you are absolutely critical to the business like a directors role or the only accountant, only programmer, only network guru etc.

Rodney Bathgate

Why did you sign a contract with a 3 month notice period?

A potential employer tried that years ago. When I questioned it they said it was a typo and changed it to 1 month.

No way would I sign a contract with a 3 month notice period.

Jim2007

Torres999 wrote: »

Hi there

I have a 3 month notice period and was unable to negotiate this down with my employer. I have been treated badly so I don’t really have any loyalty to them and have only worked there for 10 months.

Can I just leave after 2 months instead of 3? What are the chances that I would be sued? My boss is a psychopath so could just sue me for the sake of it.

Nobody can give you a definitive answer on something like this because we can't predict how your employer will respond.

In most cases, the likely outcome would be that the employer might be pi**ed off, probably not give you a reference and that is about it.

It is of course possible that you might be sued, but it is unlikely that they would win and once this is explained by the legal advisors to the company they would leave it at that. But if you really are dealing with someone out for revenge and don't care about the costs.... they might still go a head.

On balance I'd expect noting to happen beyond a bit of unpleasantness and no reference letter.... but there is always the possibility of the unexpected.

Esse85

The fact your only there 10 months, I'd of thought you'd have to give far less notice.

I mean the company could get rid of you over night if they wanted to, it should be the same for both parties.

Esse85

Esse85 wrote: »

The fact your only there 10 months, I'd of thought you'd have to give far less notice.

I mean the company could get rid of you over night if they wanted to, it should be the same for both parties.

You are referring to statutory minimum periods of notice there, your contract of employment which was agreed, may have a longer notice period which both sides would be bound by. The reality is though, an employee is far more likely to take action against an employer for not adhering to it than the other way around.

Mellor

Esse85 wrote: »

I mean the company could get rid of you over night if they wanted to, .

No they can't.

OP's contract likely has similar terms that go both ways.

Torres999 wrote: »

Hi there

I have a 3 month notice period and was unable to negotiate this down with my employer. I have been treated badly so I don’t really have any loyalty to them and have only worked there for 10 months.

Can I just leave after 2 months instead of 3? What are the chances that I would be sued? My boss is a psychopath so could just sue me for the sake of it.

What's the terms of your employment? Is it a permanent, or a fixed term?

If 12 months fixed term, you are not obliged to renew. And the 2 months notice is reasonable. If longer, you are in a worse spot.


He's not going to sue you over leaving a month early. However, if he's a psycho like you say, he may dock your pay, with penalties relating to filling your role. It's be a lot more hassle for you to fight for that.
Sick pay/stress leave wasn't a bad suggestion. Get a doctor to sign you off due to unhealthy work environment.

Esse85

Mellor wrote: »

No they can't.

OP's contract likely has similar terms that go both ways.

Employer only has to give a weeks notice in this case.

Shelflife

Just curious, if the employer decided tomorrow to let you go and decided to just pay you one months notice, how many of the above advising the OP would be happy with that ?

Esse85

Shelflife wrote: »

Just curious, if the employer decided tomorrow to let you go and decided to just pay you one months notice, how many of the above advising the OP would be happy with that ?

Well they only have to pay 1 week, so to get 4 would be a big win.

Esse85

Esse85 wrote: »

Well they only have to pay 1 week, so to get 4 would be a big win.

Again that depends on the terms of the employee contract, there is a difference between statutory minimum and contractual agreement.

Shelflife

Esse85 wrote: »

Well they only have to pay 1 week, so to get 4 would be a big win.

Nope, under the OPs contract theres a 3 month notice period.

There would appear to be a lot of people happy to ignore the employees contractual obligation, but would be roaring at the employer is they tried to pull the same stunt.

Esse85

Shelflife wrote: »

Nope, under the OPs contract theres a 3 month notice period.

There would appear to be a lot of people happy to ignore the employees contractual obligation, but would be roaring at the employer is they tried to pull the same stunt.

3 months for the employee to give as per contract, 1 weeks notice for the employer to give employee when when from 13 weeks to 2 years.

Esse85

Esse85 wrote: »

3 months for the employee to give as per contract, 1 weeks notice for the employer to give employee when when from 13 weeks to 2 years.

You’ve read the op’s contract?

Esse85

Dav010 wrote: »

You’ve read the op’s contract?

The OP has said his employer requests 3 months notice in the contract.

Jim2007

Esse85 wrote: »

The OP has said his employer requests 3 months notice in the contract.

And I have yet to see an employment contract that did not have the same notice period for both parties.... so where did you get the idea that there are two different notice periods in the OPs contract?

Mellor

Esse85 wrote: »

Employer only has to give a weeks notice in this case.

Do you have extra information that nobody else does?

A contract with 1 week notice for one party and 3 months for another would be very unusual. Although not impossible.

jimmycrackcorm

Shelflife wrote: »

Nope, under the OPs contract theres a 3 month notice period.

There would appear to be a lot of people happy to ignore the employees contractual obligation, but would be roaring at the employer is they tried to pull the same stunt.

The Three month notice doesn't count for the first year as an employ can be easily let go in that period. Also there would be nothing the employer can do about it as it is against natural justice to prevent an employee from earning a living by going to another employer.

Employment contracts preventing employees moving to another employer are unenforceable here unless it can be definitively proven that it harms the previous employer. e.g taking direct clients or provable information that will do harm to the company.

As the op has only been there ten months, it's impossible to enforce such an indenture of servitude upon them.

As for your bit in bold. The employer could go out of business in that time and there's no contractual answer for the employee.

Mellor

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The Three month notice doesn't count for the first year as an employ can be easily let go in that period.

That depends entirely on the terms of the contract. Any contract I’ve had with a reduced notice during probation went both ways.

Also there would be nothing the employer can do about it as it is against natural justice to prevent an employee from earning a living by going to another employer.

Employment contracts preventing employees moving to another employer are unenforceable here unless it can be definitively proven that it harms the previous employer. e.g taking direct clients or provable information that will do harm to the company.

He’s not prevented from earning a living. He’ll get paid for those 3 months, while he looks for a new employer.
You are describing a situation where somebody is restricted from working AFTER notice. Which can happen for senior management and the likes.

As the op has only been there ten months, it's impossible to enforce such an indenture of servitude upon them.

I agree it’s a ridiculous notice period. But maybe there’s a reason for it. And maybe not. Seems silly to assume without more info

As for your bit in bold. The employer could go out of business in that time and there's no contractual answer for the employee.

Or the employee could die.
There are legal process in place to deal with these things.

Esse85

Mellor wrote: »

Do you have extra information that nobody else does?

A contract with 1 week notice for one party and 3 months for another would be very unusual. Although not impossible.

It's a pretty regular occurance actually for the employer to require far more notice than the employee.

Esse85

Jim2007 wrote: »

And I have yet to see an employment contract that did not have the same notice period for both parties.... so where did you get the idea that there are two different notice periods in the OPs contract?

I've seen it many a time, the OP has mentioned it in his opening post. It's in his contract. He's "agreed" and signed the contract therefore indicating he's happy with the terms and conditions of giving 3 months notice.

Companies are out to suit themselves and do what's best for them. If your not happy with this then don't sign for the company for renegotiate before signing.

Meanwhile the law states a company only has to give you a weeks notice when you've been with them 13 weeks - 2 years.

padser

Esse85 wrote: »

It's a pretty regular occurance actually for the employer to require far more notice than the employee.

I'm reasonably sure it's not. I've never come across it. I'm not aware of a specific reason it cant be done, but it's never been in any employment contract I've seen or heard of.

I'm unsure whether it would be enforceable, I guess maybe

I think there is a lot of confusion between statutatory minimum notice periods and contractual notice periods on this thread.

That statutory minimum is the "1 week after months etc". It means two things

1) the contractual notice period can never be less
2) if there is no contractual notice period, this is the period that applies

The statutory minimum applies to both employer and employee.

The contractual period (which in this case is 3 months) supersedes statutory one assuming its longer (which it is). In the absence of the OP stating that it only applies to the employee - it makes sense to assume it applies both ways - that is standard. .

@OP - notice periods are generally not enforceable by companies on employees in ireland. There are many reasons, but mostly because you cant really be forced to work for someone.

Breaking a notice period can have repercussions such as not getting a reference etc.

Breaking a notice period and attempting to take another job, in particular for a compeitor could leave you open to action.

Technically breaking a notice period could also leave you open to some action but as far as I remember the company would need to show loss / harm which is generally tough. It's extremely unusual for a company to try and take this type of action unless you are at a v senior level. If you are, then take proper legal advice. PM me and I'll recommend an employment specialist.

bucketybuck

Torres999 wrote: »

What are the chances that I would be sued?

0.0001%

Whether he is a psychopath or not, you could just never show up again and there would be effectively nothing he could do about it, never mind leaving early in the notice period.

Mellor

Esse85 wrote: »

It's a pretty regular occurance actually for the employer to require far more notice than the employee.

A week or two maybe. 3 months more? I can’t imagine that’s common at all.
If people have agreed to that, they’ve been had.

Esse85

Mellor wrote: »

A week or two maybe. 3 months more? I can’t imagine that’s common at all.
If people have agreed to that, they’ve been had.

Quiet common in sales.

1hnr79jr65

Mellor wrote: »

A week or two maybe. 3 months more? I can’t imagine that’s common at all.
If people have agreed to that, they’ve been had.

Common in pharma.

Jim2007

Esse85 wrote: »

It's a pretty regular occurance actually for the employer to require far more notice than the employee.

It most certainly is not.

Esse85

Jim2007 wrote: »

It most certainly is not.

I can confirm it's common in sales.
Another poster above just said its common in pharma.

C3PO

Esse85 wrote: »

I can confirm it's common in sales.
Another poster above just said its common in pharma.

That’s not what he said - he said that 3 months notice is common in Pharma!
I have never seen a contract where the notice terms are not the same on both sides! I’m not saying that they don’t exist but they are not usual!

Esse85

C3PO wrote: »

That’s not what he said - he said that 3 months notice is common in Pharma!
I have never seen a contract where the notice terms are not the same on both sides! I’m not saying that they don’t exist but they are not usual!

I've come across it regularly in sales. Maybe it's a sales thing so but it happens.

I’ve a 3 month myself but I pay no heed to it as I’ll be working 1 when the time comes. Don’t give companies any respect OP, you’ll never get it in return.

Shelflife

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

I’ve a 3 month myself but I pay no heed to it as I’ll be working 1 when the time comes. Don’t give companies any respect OP, you’ll never get it in return.

Reg if the company decided to let you go, would you be happy if they paid no heed to the contract and only paid you a months notice ?

Shelflife

Shelflife wrote: »

Reg if the company decided to let you go, would you be happy if they paid no heed to the contract and only paid you a months notice ?

I fully expect them to give no more than a week so I won’t feel anything except indifference.

1hnr79jr65

I was working in pharma with 3 months notice, however i decided to leave and came to mutual agreement of 3 weeks on discussion.

Everything is not set in stone if you can give a reasonable rationale for earlier mutual separation, as long as you not going to an immediate competitor or are knowledgeable of patented trade secrets.

Sour Lemonz

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

I was working in pharma with 3 months notice, however i decided to leave and came to mutual agreement of 3 weeks on discussion.

Everything is not set in stone if you can give a reasonable rationale for earlier mutual separation.

The pharma industry is just constant recycle of staff and musical chairs at the moment though. Anyone can be replaced within a few days.

py2006

When you say badly treated, how badly are we talking?

If its unbearable, leave now or at most a weeks notice.


EDIT: Its not like you have been there 10 years, its only 10 months. If you are still in probation and they didn't like you, they can drop you in a flash.

Strumms

Three months notice is incredibly excessive. The most I’ve ever needed to give was one month. I’d like to see the law, turn on the employees side whereby the max notice a company can require and write into a contract is 4 weeks, 6-7 if it’s a very specialist job/position... such as a pilot in a small airline or some such...

Imagine I’m interviewing today for a job, I saw the add online. Better pay, better conditions, an office closer to my home... etc.... they call me with the good news, offer me the job, confirm salary and I accept.. they ask me when I can start, I tell them October 22nd... if you are the hiring manager you are going to be “errrrrr, sorry but we sought to hire you and offered you the position with the position needing to be filled while not immediately but certainly in the short term... waiting a quarter of a year between us offering you the job and you showing up to start work and receive your training isn’t satisfactory, the offer is withdrawn.”

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

Three months notice is incredibly excessive. The most I’ve ever needed to give was one month. I’d like to see the law, turn on the employees side whereby the max notice a company can require and write into a contract is 4 weeks, 6-7 if it’s a very specialist job/position... such as a pilot in a small airline or some such...

Imagine I’m interviewing today for a job, I saw the add online. Better pay, better conditions, an office closer to my home... etc.... they call me with the good news, offer me the job, confirm salary and I accept.. they ask me when I can start, I tell them October 22nd... if you are the hiring manager you are going to be “errrrrr, sorry but we sought to hire you and offered you the position with the position needing to be filled while not immediately but certainly in the short term... waiting a quarter of a year between us offering you the job and you showing up to start work and receive your training isn’t satisfactory, the offer is withdrawn.”

Surely you would understand that when reading and signing your contract of employment?

What happens when there’s 3 months in the contract and you’ve a company car?

Strumms

Dav010 wrote: »

Surely you would understand that when reading and signing your contract of employment?

You would but that doesn’t make it a fair or realistic expectation for an employee to be put under.

Employers need to be fair and realistic. Employees move on. That part of life. Four to six weeks should be the longest notice period.

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

You would but that doesn’t make it a fair or realistic expectation for an employee to be put under.

Employers need to be fair and realistic. Employees move on. That part of life. Four to six weeks should be the longest notice period.

If you think it’s unfair, don’t agree to the contract. The Government shouldn’t have to legislate to protect an employee from making a poor decision on agreeing a term when accepting a job. You should be capable of deciding that for yourself.

Strumms

Dav010 wrote: »

If you think it’s unfair, don’t agree to the contract. The Government shouldn’t have to legislate to protect an employee from making a poor decision on agreeing a term when accepting a job. You should be capable of deciding that for yourself.

The government should be willing to write, legislate and regulate the employment laws so that employees don’t have to be screening potential employers on the basis of them having the legal wiggle room to include such ridiculous, unfair and careless notice clauses.

bucketybuck

The government should write laws so that employees don't have to read their own contracts?

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

The government should be willing to write, legislate and regulate the employment laws so that employees don’t have to be screening potential employers on the basis of them having the legal wiggle room to include such ridiculous, unfair and careless notice clauses.

A notice period is a very simple term and condition in an employment contract, the Government has legislated to provide statutory minimum periods the same way they have for minimum rates of pay. It is up to the applicant to accept or reject periods in excess of the minimum, they do so freely. Employees of course should be screening employers based on the terms and conditions of employment.

Strumms

bucketybuck wrote: »

The government should write laws so that employees don't have to read their own contracts?

No, the government should prevent companies from trying to contract employees to things like notice periods of three months.

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

No, the government should prevent companies from trying to contract employees to things like notice periods of three months.

But the employee is free to reject the contract.

Strumms

Dav010 wrote: »

But the employee is free to reject the contract.

Truth, but then why have a minimum wage ? By your argument, well if the job wants to offer you 5.70 an hour, just reject the contract.

There simply needs to be a minimum wage but also minimum standards of behavior for employers.

Trying to encourage employees to sign up to restrictive and unfair arrangements as has been mentioned here is unsatisfactory.

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

Truth, but then why have a minimum wage ? By your argument, well if the job wants to offer you 5.70 an hour, just reject the contract.

There simply needs to be a minimum wage but also minimum standards of behavior for employers.

Trying to encourage employees to sign up to restrictive and unfair arrangements as has been mentioned here is unsatisfactory.

The employer is meeting the statutory minimum standards of pay and behaviour in relation to remuneration and notice period, anything exceeding that is discretionary. If you don’t like the pay and notice period, reject the job.

As another poster said, you don’t need the Government to legislate to make you decide on what terms and conditions are acceptable to you. That is a choice you make freely.

bucketybuck

What exactly is unfair about an explicitly stated need for a longer notice period?

I know people like financial controllers who have had extended notice periods, people in core positions that cannot be left unfilled, what exactly is unfair about a company being clear about that and then a grown man or woman making their own decision about whether to accept it or not?

Are there any other contract clauses you think are unfair or is it just notice periods that you would prefer to ignore when it suits you?