He gets to leave in 3 weeks, but they're making me stay 3 months?(14 Posts)
A colleague and I both do the same job, have been with our company for the same amount of time, and are the same seniority. We are both on contractual 3-month notice periods.
He gave notice recently and was only required to work three weeks of his notice. Two weeks later, I gave notice as well, and my employer is making me work all three months of my notice. Their reason is 'because of all of the upheaval caused by (other colleague) leaving we need stability'.
I'm a bit 'Say whaaaa?' about the whole thing. My colleague feels awful about this, bless him. I've officially written in my resignation letter to request my last day is six weeks from now as I know there is an internal candidate who can act as a caretaker until someone permanent is recruited. When I mentioned this in my face-to-face, my boss didn't agree that this person could act up in the role which is complete BS as he did this role at his last job very successfully and really wants to do the same role at our current company. But she's not hearing it and doesn't agree.
Do I have absolutely any leg to stand on in requesting a reduction in my notice period (I do have an actual good reason for wanting to leave earlier, I'm not just being a pill) because of the very short notice period granted to my colleague? I have asked but it's been very 'computer says no'.
It's always the notice periods, isn't it?
Don't know the legal side but if it was me I would have a serious talk with manager and inform them that you feel discriminated against being forced to stay longer than other employee. Being demotivated is not something a boss wants as it can create added problems with the rest of the workforce so you need to be clear with him.
Also do you have a hr department? They should be handling this.
My company has something like 25000 employees so I think HR is just an email address somewhere... I'll have a look tomorrow and see what I can find.
Also, my boss' husband used to work for the company I'm going to, so maybe there's something going on there. Or maybe not! It's late ;)
You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. They may ask you to be there for the notice period but ( after you have your reference!) they can't do much if you decide to spend all day filing your nails - except come to a mutually agreeable shorter notice period.
I'd be tempted to mutter 'sex discrimination' at them and see if that changes their mind.
After you have a reference, I'd gently hint about how excited you are for the next place...I think it's mad to keep people who are clearly not motivated to stay.
Are you client facing? If so it's 3 months of poaching time!
I'm sure it's frustrating but Sorry I see their point if two people resign in close proximity to one another they are already going to be one man down they're Under no obligation to release you earlier then you've committed to contractually.
It's not discrimination I expected you to resigned first they would've made the same agreement with you and kept him to his contractual notice. More fool them for having agreed a shorter notice period for him in the first place.
You could refuse and leave at the six week mark anyway there's not a lot they can do about it other than taint you on a reference as you will be in breach of your contract.
Do you have any reason to think the reason they won't release you early is because you are a woman?
I agree with Figgygal - if the situation has been reversed with you and your colleague then I'm sure you'd be able to leave early bit he got in there first.
Lots of our organisation is on 3 months notice and it irritates the hell out of me when people push and push for a reduction because it's almost impossible to recruit and get a handover within 6-8 weeks.
A notice period protects both parties; would you be happy to accept 6 weeks notice instead of 3months, if you were being made redundant? Because it suited them?
Unfortunately a notice period is just that.
Your colleague is lucky because he got in first. They released him because they didn't know you were leaving too. If it had been at the same time you'd probably both be staying the full 3 months.
There isn't anything you can do but perhaps say if they manage to replace you (both) within the 3 months could they look at releasing you early.
I understand your frustration. I was made redundant, other colleagues when they had gone had been put on gardening leave or had pay in lieu of notice. I had to work every last second of my notice period - my boss had been peeved that I hadnt fallen in with his plans and had accepted the redundancy option.
FFS, it's not sex discrimination and posters who shout that should be ashamed of themselves.
OP, yes you're obliged to work your notice period. If the company wanted to dismiss you, you would want them to pay your full notice - it works the other way round too.
Unfortunately they'd already let your colleague go so they need you to work your notice.
Be gracious and do it properly - it's a small world
Hi, I was a HR Advisor before having kids.
All that mater here is what is written in your contract of employment, which you stated says three months notice.
Your husband is just lucky that he has a boss who feels it 'fits the needs of the business' for him to leave earlier. As with lots of contractual stuff, your manager has a degree of discretion and can agree an alternative arrangement with you to leave earlier if it 'fits the needs of the business'. But what they say goes.
Sorry but there is nothing you can do and it's perfectly legal for your manager to insist you stay for the full notice period (they could not make you stay longer than that, but could agree a shorter notice period). Stay on their good side and try to convince then with a plan of action - that's your only hope.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.