Extended notice period due to long service

bainbridge

bainbridge

bainbridge

Soldato
Joined
9 Dec 2009
Posts
5,322
Location
Bristol
Hi all

According to our company policy there's a requirement to give 1 months notice when leaving if less than 5 years service but if you've been there longer it's an extra week for every year worked over 5. So with me being there for 10 years if I hand in my notice I'm expected to give 9 weeks! I think that's unreasonable, a month should be the going rate.

How do I stand from a legal point of view if I were to give a month's notice? I guess technically I would be in breach of contract but does anyone have any experience of any flexibility being given around this?

Thanks
 
I don't think it's that unreasonable, my last job has something similar where the longer you were employed the longer your notice period was (although was just 2 step changes rather than constantly changing year on year). After all it generally takes longer to recruit more experienced people.

Don't quote me on this, but I remember hearing previously that in order for them to go after you for breach of contract if you leave before your notice period they have to prove no one else in the organisation is able to cover your role. In reality this is rarely the case as most people have some sort of cover when they go on holiday etc.

You might think it's unreasonable, but do you really want to burn bridges when you leave and have a reference with a negative comment? If you want to leave, hand in your notice then try and negotiate you notice period down.
 
^^^
This

Plenty of people have 3 month notice periods, some have 3 month non compete periods after that too.

(Sometimes you can get 6-12 month noncompetes too but they’re harder to enforce).
 
AFAIK it is one of the areas that isn't very well defined - notice has to be "reasonable" and to some vague amount not detrimental to you finding work elsewhere. 3 months notice wouldn't be unusual if you'd built up 10 years of experience and had progressed a bit from a basic role but a bit excessive if you'd been say working for min-wage in a warehouse.
 
Gosh, glad mine is 4 weeks and I've been in my job for 9 years.

Never understand the need for such a long notice period, even management are 4 weeks at my place.
 
3 months here. Pretty standard.

There's little effective comeback for a company if you just stop turning up. They could only sue you if they could prove loss, which would need them to show they had tried to mitigate. For a few weeks pay, only a basket case of a company is going to litigate.

You might find you've burned a bridge, though. And they might not give out a reference. I'd still do it if the move of jobs was worthwhile
 
alx said:
You might think it's unreasonable, but do you really want to burn bridges when you leave and have a reference with a negative comment? If you want to leave, hand in your notice then try and negotiate you notice period down.
Click to expand...

You'll never get a reference with anything negative on it, if they feel that hard done by they'll just refuse to give a reference.
 
tom_e said:
You'll never get a reference with anything negative on it, if they feel that hard done by they'll just refuse to give a reference.
Click to expand...

Surely it's reasonable to state in a reference that the person didn't serve their required notice period if it's a matter of fact and not a subjective comment?
 
alx said:
Surely it's reasonable to state in a reference that the person didn't serve their required notice period if it's a matter of fact and not a subjective comment?
Click to expand...

I think more companies are moving away from providing references, and now just have a standard template to say So-and-so worked this position between date Y and date Z.

Big IT company I work for also got rid of their 3 month notice periods, for 1 month, about 10 years ago. Obviously it's great if you want to leave, but if you're being made redundant then you get less pay (PILON).
 
cheesyboy said:
Why risk it? Again, only a basket case company will put themselves in a position to be sued with that sort of move. What's the point?
Click to expand...

What would they get sued for if it was true? I understand where you're coming from though, easier for them just to give a standard reference, but going back to the original point why doesn't the OP just work his required notice and avoid and potential hassle.
 
cheesyboy said:
Why risk it? Again, only a basket case company will put themselves in a position to be sued with that sort of move. What's the point?
Click to expand...

Depends on the situation, someone breaching a non-compete AND breaching a notice period on top is likely to provoke a reaction that exceeds a bad reference.

There seems to be some sort of urban myth by barrack room lawyer types that it is "illegal" for a company to provide a bad reference, you can't just sue a company for presenting as fact that an employee didn't work his/her notice period.

Sure someone in a low end job who is just an idiot and decides they hate their job and aren't turning up anymore is probably not an issue and likely won't even bother asking for a reference. But if you're a well paid professional then just handing your notice in and not turning up if you're planning on working in the same field would be a bit weird.
 
I've never had a job whwreits longer than a month, but this is the first time I've had a job that's said to give three months notice flat out.

One month when you think about it is no time at all really for the company you're leaving.
 
Standard 3 months here ... but its rare that someone is made to stay that long and its normally due to other circumstances. I know people who have quit on the Monday and left on Friday of the same week (although that did not go down well with either Management or the person's colleagues). I'd say on average probably most people stay a month.

Works both ways though although I do know people who have been bought out of their notice period so they were off the books sooner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom