Notice periods

Re: Notice periods

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 18:02:19 GMT

[quote user="plantagenet"]I'm not a lawyer and would like an expert here to give the decisive answer, but after a bit of googling, I still maintain that if you work under a set of conditions for long enough (not sure how long) and dont sign your contract, those conditions become your contract by default.[/quote]

yeah, the terms and conditions you started work under......... which the employer should have given you in writing; you may be invited to sign them to prove you have read them, but you don't have to. If 18 months later your employers offer you a contract, you can agree to that contract or not as you wish: it doesn't become your default terms and conditions. I'm no LLB, but I've been through this twice with different employers.

Of course, a verbal contract is also binding, but it's so hard to prove it's not worth much.

Re: Notice periods

mariette asselbergs — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:32:03 GMT

Yes I think there is a problem with this. I witnessed a situation where the employer refused to define in the contract what the on call rota would be (e.g. 1 in 5). When the assistant refused to leave this open (and in practice it turned out that she would have to accept extra OOH without any extra pay, she was only left the choice of leaving. If she kept on working it meant she had accepted the employer's condition of a non-defined OOH rota.

It is also too optimistic to count on mediation, legal assistance or the tribunal, e.g. for employees who return to their country of residence, or to a new job distant from the conflict job. Employers are seen to try how far they can go. I was told by BVA legal aid that "time in lieu" is not an enforceable right. If you have worked the extra hours but the employer refuses to honour the time in lieu or payment, it is not at all sure that you will win.

Re: Notice periods

Martin Jones — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 13:58:14 GMT

[quote user="plantagenet"]

I still maintain that if you work under a set of conditions for long enough (not sure how long) and dont sign your contract, those conditions become your contract by default.

[/quote]

Employment conditions and contracts are not necessarily the same thing: you may be deemed to accept a certain set of working conditions if you adhere to them and don't complain - but this is a fairly subjective assessment. If the contract were exactly the same as the conditions, then you could technically be said to be working consistently with the contract, but without agreement it isn't enforceable in itself. Trying to take your employers to tribunal for what you consider unreasonable working conditions, if you've been working under them for a period of time without complaint AND they're lawful, would be fairly tricky - not to say low on merit.

This is why we have contracts - to set in (relative) stone the arrangements between the two parties. Otherwise, it all just ends in recriminations and argument.

Re: Notice periods

plantagenet — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 12:39:47 GMT

I'm not a lawyer and would like an expert here to give the decisive answer, but after a bit of googling, I still maintain that if you work under a set of conditions for long enough (not sure how long) and dont sign your contract, those conditions become your contract by default.

We must have some LLB's here somewhere.

Re: Notice periods

Utlendigur — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 10:19:02 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"]if you refuse to sign a contract, it can never become 'assumed'. This is one of the fundamental principles of a contract - it's a declaration of agreement between two or more parties. No agreement, no contract.[/quote]

Maybe there's a difference between refusing to sign ie actively disagreeing with the contract (in writing?), and simply not signing ie doing nothing. I'm pretty sure that in the latter case, that does count as tacit acceptance whether there is a signature or not.

Re: Notice periods

Martin Jones — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 01:23:44 GMT

[quote user="plantagenet"]

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]it only becomes a binding agreement or contract once signed. [/quote]

or if not signed, it becomes assumed - forget after what period

[/quote]

Absolutely untrue - if you refuse to sign a contract, it can never become 'assumed'. This is one of the fundamental principles of a contract - it's a declaration of agreement between two or more parties. No agreement, no contract.

If you refuse to agree to the terms of the contract a statutory contract comes into play, which is not governed or informed by the contract that the employer attempted to introduce, but which is defined by the employee's rights under law. Additionally, an employee is legally protected in the event that s/he refuses to sign any introduced contract.

Re: Notice periods

Martin Jones — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 01:18:47 GMT

No, not really. The only time an employer might get away with this is of the employee leaves within 12 months of starting permanent employment - and then only by fudging definitions and refusing to allow the employee into the building. It would be a convoluted way of doing things that wouldn't be worth the effort.

Otherwise, the employee has a case to apply to a tribunal for mediation and compensation. This is free to the (ex) employee, but can be eye-wateringly expensive for the employer. For the sake of a few days' holiday pay, it's simply not worth the fuss to them. If any of your 'friends' have had this happen to them in the last six months (tribunals usually have an expiry date of three months, but for things like unpaid wages, it may be up to six months), tell them to phone acas. If they wish to expedite the process, they should indicate that they're amenable to mediation. Bad employers will generally pay up quicker, as they know they're in the wrong, and how much it will end up costing them.

Re: Notice periods

mariette asselbergs — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 21:25:04 GMT

Can I ask a related question? I have now seen several situations where an employer refuses to honour outstanding holidays, time in lieu for extra hours, or payment for extra OOH worked, as soon as somebody has given notice. If the person insists on the holidays then they are not paid their last salary. Have more people on this forum working in UK had this experience?

Re: Notice periods

plantagenet — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 15:44:02 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]Why does any employer leave it 18 months[/quote]

Possible reasons:

1. They are up to something.

2. They have been reading management journals.

3. Their solicitor has said " Hey, you really ought to cover this aspect........"

4. Their accountant has said "You want to be providing yourselves with a mechanism to shed staff without too much expense........"

[/quote]

They are too b***y busy trying to run the practice and all its attendant extras and didn't get round to it?

Re: Notice periods

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 14:54:10 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]As yet it is only an "offer" of a contract because Aurelia has not agreed to it or signed it, it only becomes a binding agreement or contract once signed.[/quote]

That's correct.

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]Why does any employer leave it 18 months[/quote]

Possible reasons:

1. They are up to something.

2. They have been reading management journals.

3. Their solicitor has said " Hey, you really ought to cover this aspect........"

4. Their accountant has said "You want to be providing yourselves with a mechanism to shed staff without too much expense........"

Re: Notice periods

Helen Wallace — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 11:39:38 GMT

As an assistant, my contracts have always been 2 months notice on each side and most of my friends are pretty similar. Yours seems fairly heavily weighted in favour of the other party. Was it drawn up by your boss or are they using an hr company?

Re: Notice periods

plantagenet — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:19:19 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]it only becomes a binding agreement or contract once signed. [/quote]

or if not signed, it becomes assumed - forget after what period

Re: Notice periods

Clive Ansell — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 21:54:47 GMT

As yet it is only an "offer" of a contract because Aurelia has not agreed to it or signed it, it only becomes a binding agreement or contract once signed.

Why does any employer leave it 18 months, surely it is better for both parties if things are agreed and signed, and everyone knows what is what at the start of employment?

Re: Notice periods

Martin Jones — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 21:47:49 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

For a contract to be enforcable, it has to be reasonable, and in this context, reasonable would mean that the period of notice for employer and employee has to be the same,and not less than the interval between pay unless the employer is giving notice, in which case statutory minimums apply. Anyway , if you have been employed for 18 months without a contract, your employers are already in breach of the law

Wynne

[/quote]

Sorry, Wynne, but virtually none of this is actually true. Reasonableness within a contract is more about restrictive clauses or obscure phrasing which a layperson wouldn't be expected to understand. Setting a period of notice which is within the law is not restrictrive. It's just unfriendly.

Written job condiitons are a requirement of law; written contracts are not. In the absence of a written contract, the government's version, or implied contract, just automatically comes into play.

The best thing to do when faced with this sort of contract is to walk out with a week's notice, and put up your own plate as a single-handed practitioner four doors up. And then offer all clients of your former practice free first consults and half-price boosters.

Re: Notice periods

Stephen Courtney — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:12:33 GMT

2-3 months notice if you want to leave your job is reasonable, but i think it is unfair if it doesn't go both ways.

I'd suggest sit down and negotiate. you don't have to sign your contract, and your employer cannot enforce an unfair notice period on you. The point of a notice period is that you are not leaving their business in the lurch, Equally they should not be able to leave you scrambling around to get another job in a hurry either!

Re: Notice periods

Aurelia Verdin — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:23:09 GMT

Thanks for the replies, when I said given I did mean it as in given to look over not "here is your contract whether you like it or not"! Having asked around most of my friends seem to have 1-2months, but they also get given 1months notice in return. I just feel that it is very 1-sided contract and that it isn't particularly fair that I would, if I sign it as it is, have to give 3 months, whilst only really being given the legal minimum.

Re: Notice periods

Rob Loxley — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 13:31:59 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]reasonable would mean that the period of notice for employer and employee has to be the same[/quote]

While I agree with most people that usually the notice is the same for both parties, I'm not sure a difference is unreasonable, as long as the statutory minimum is given?

Re: Notice periods

Edward Jones — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 13:23:41 GMT

After signing my last contract I realised it had a 3 month notice period. When I came to leaving I simply gave a standard 2 month notice (actually 8 weeks to the day). A bit naughty perhaps, but my boss seemed grateful for having *any* notice... I don't think he realised the contract stated 3 months, or at least didn't make a thing of it.

Most employers want rid of you toward the end of the notice period anyway, and it's not like it's advantageous to try to force you to come to work for that extra month!

Re: Notice periods

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:43:47 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Anyway , if you have been employed for 18 months without a contract, your employers are already in breach of the law

Wynne

[/quote]

Not strictly true, there is no legal requirement for a signed contract but the employer must give written terms and conditions of employment after a period of continous employment of 3 months and it is implicitly understood that these terms have been accepted if the employee doesn't object. My staff are given this as soon as they are offered a job and the terms don't change after 3 months but both parties are on safer ground if there is a signed contract that lays out all possibilities, so they are given a contract after 3 months anyway. Not all sign it but the understanding in the first sentence still applies. Personally I would give and would expect 2 months notice of leaving, mainly so it gives me time to recruit a replacement. If an employee walks out there is not really much an employer can do other than withold pay not given, for a small business it's not worth chasing the employee for breach of contract, we're not talking about a football club manager on millions of pounds are we?

Re: Notice periods

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 08:49:36 GMT

Wynne

Re: Notice periods

Clive Ansell — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 08:05:51 GMT

What was agreed in the first place when you took the job 1 1/2 years ago? as others have said you have been offered a contract, if you agree you can accept it, if not decline and go back and renegotiate. I would have thought the notice period should be the same in both directions. When I agree locum work it is on the basis of a months notice in either direction.

in the absence of a contract there is a legally required minimum.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Resigningorretiring/DG_175837

If you have worked for your employer for one month or more, the legal minimum amount of notice you must give is one week. Normally your employment contract will set out a longer notice period. If it does, you should give this length of notice to your employer.

Whatever your contract says, your employer must give you at least the statutory minimum period of notice, which depends on how long you've worked for them:

one week if you have been continuously employed for between one month and two years
one week for each complete year (up to a maximum of 12) if you have been continuously employed for two or more years

Re: Notice periods

Andrew Kent — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:06:51 GMT

IME 2-3 months is pretty standard as a notice period but agree it should work both ways. I would think at least 1 month notice should be requested from them.

Re: Notice periods

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 23:23:30 GMT

Of course, two parties can contract almost whatever they want. But what you are being offered seems very strange and unfair. Whatever the notice period is, it surely ought to be the same on both sides. When I was an employee, a month was most usual.

By the way, you can't be just given a contract, in the sense of "here you are, this your contract, like it or not". They can offer you a contract, but it's up to you whether you sign it or not. A contract is something that's agreed between the parties. Admittedly the employer has the whip hand rather. "Won't sign? OK. Forget that salary rise that we mentioned verbally last year".