Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Given notice at work

309 replies

Forgotwhat · 02/06/2023 09:50

My work has given me my notice - 3 months and I’ve been there under two years-so I don’t have a leg to stand on.

I don’t desperately need the money-can I just go? I don’t really want to carry on working for them for another 3 months to hand things tidily over to other team members etc.

Basically I have set up a department and way of working for them, and now mostly the grunt work is done they want stuff taken over by cheaper members of staff (basically I am redundant with no redundancy rights) it’s all fine, I just don’t really want to spend three months training people how to do my job and showing them the tricks of the trade when they’ve decided to end my employment.

can I just say that’s absolutely fine, I don’t need a notice and I am happy to forgo that and leave today? I know if I give notice I have to work it- but this is different the decision to go isn’t mine-so I don’t feel I need to honour it?

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
ZIEVAR · 12/06/2023 18:43

That was too Lieselotte

ZIEVAR · 12/06/2023 18:42

I agree.

Rosscameasdoody · 09/06/2023 09:50

MrsPinkCock · 07/06/2023 17:36

Then ACAS (who are not legally trained and essentially just read from a script) gave you the wrong advice!

Any procedures which genuinely are contractual should be followed to avoid a wrongful dismissal claim - but it isn’t an automatically unfair dismissal if they just don’t bother, and the employee still has no unfair dismissal rights - only those rights that can be claimed as a breach of contract.

(Incidentally the OP wouldn’t be redundant in law if the job still exists, and the law does recognise an employee being dismissed for no reason - I’ve even seen that argument in an ET!)

Show quote history

You’ve basically taken what I said and nitpicked it. And I’m perfectly well aware that it’s the job that is redundant and not the person, but if the company restructures the role itself may no longer exist and the duties making up that role can be distributed among the remaining staff.

lieselotte · 07/06/2023 21:17

The 2 years thing is ridiculously long, when most roles have 3 to 6 month probationary periods, and obviously was extended from 1 year for the benefit of employers, not employees

Indeed, it was about the first action of the Coalition government in 2010. Supposedly because the economy was weak and it would encourage more people to be taken on by employers.

Even a year is too long in my view.

Florissante · 07/06/2023 17:45

It has been made clear that the OP has been made redundant. One can give terrible advice or argue about attendance or discrimination or whatever imaginary issue they want until they are blue in the face but that does not change the OP's situation.

MrsPinkCock · 07/06/2023 17:36

Rosscameasdoody · 07/06/2023 14:12

Actually it’s not rubbish, I’ve been in this situation before and advice from ACAS included making sure that if dismissal was on grounds of attendance, conduct or performance, that any disciplinary or other procedures forming part of the contract of employment should be followed to avoid a claim of automatic unfair dismissal. And nowhere did I say that there was any evidence of that. Neither did I say that it had to be a redundancy situation - I said it appeared to be a redundancy situation in which her duties would be shared out among remaining staff.

Show quote history

Then ACAS (who are not legally trained and essentially just read from a script) gave you the wrong advice!

Any procedures which genuinely are contractual should be followed to avoid a wrongful dismissal claim - but it isn’t an automatically unfair dismissal if they just don’t bother, and the employee still has no unfair dismissal rights - only those rights that can be claimed as a breach of contract.

(Incidentally the OP wouldn’t be redundant in law if the job still exists, and the law does recognise an employee being dismissed for no reason - I’ve even seen that argument in an ET!)

Rosscameasdoody · 07/06/2023 14:12

Sewannoying · 07/06/2023 12:59

I was replying to your message where you talk rubbish about about her attendance records being ok and it having to be a redundancy situation. I’m well aware of the long list of auto unfair reasons (no evidence of this), unlawful discrimination (no evidence of this) and breach of contract (reasons irrelevant, what matters is if the contract is followed (both express and implied terms)). It is perfectly legal for the employer to one day decide that they don’t need a person anymore and give them notice, and if it is under the 2 years, there is little the employee can do about it.

Show quote history

Actually it’s not rubbish, I’ve been in this situation before and advice from ACAS included making sure that if dismissal was on grounds of attendance, conduct or performance, that any disciplinary or other procedures forming part of the contract of employment should be followed to avoid a claim of automatic unfair dismissal. And nowhere did I say that there was any evidence of that. Neither did I say that it had to be a redundancy situation - I said it appeared to be a redundancy situation in which her duties would be shared out among remaining staff.

Sewannoying · 07/06/2023 12:59

Rosscameasdoody · 07/06/2023 12:03

When looking to dismiss an employee with less than 2 years service an employer has to make sure that the dismissal doesn’t breach rules around automatically unfair dismissal, unlawful discrimination, protected characteristics, or breach of contract.

Show quote history

I was replying to your message where you talk rubbish about about her attendance records being ok and it having to be a redundancy situation. I’m well aware of the long list of auto unfair reasons (no evidence of this), unlawful discrimination (no evidence of this) and breach of contract (reasons irrelevant, what matters is if the contract is followed (both express and implied terms)). It is perfectly legal for the employer to one day decide that they don’t need a person anymore and give them notice, and if it is under the 2 years, there is little the employee can do about it.

Florissante · 07/06/2023 12:08

Rosscameasdoody · 07/06/2023 12:03

When looking to dismiss an employee with less than 2 years service an employer has to make sure that the dismissal doesn’t breach rules around automatically unfair dismissal, unlawful discrimination, protected characteristics, or breach of contract.

Show quote history

That was established about 100 posts earlier.

Rosscameasdoody · 07/06/2023 12:03

Sewannoying · 04/06/2023 18:54

They absolutely can dismiss her for no reason if she has less than 2 years’ service.

Show quote history

When looking to dismiss an employee with less than 2 years service an employer has to make sure that the dismissal doesn’t breach rules around automatically unfair dismissal, unlawful discrimination, protected characteristics, or breach of contract.

Florissante · 07/06/2023 11:24

I like your style, @Crikeyalmighty! It's rare to see someone say that they are willing to learn.

Crikeyalmighty · 07/06/2023 11:22

@AlisonDonut what actually isn't correct- ? under 2 years as far as I'm aware you don't have to go through the usual processes and rights are limited to unfair claims for very specific reasons such as various discriminatory practices . I worked in HR too for quite a while but don't now and I'm really not trying to be argumentative- if my understanding is out of date then it would be good to have it updated!!

Florissante · 07/06/2023 11:07

Loopy123's post reminds me of cover of The New Yorker years ago "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog".

Rosscameasdoody · 07/06/2023 10:55

Loopsy123 · 06/06/2023 23:47

Does your 3 month notice take you up to the 2 years mark? Is your role permanent? Regardless of having no rights for unfair dismissal they still have to dismiss you for one of only 5 fair reasons and if it is redundancy that they are saying then they still need to consult with you, go through process etc. process is the biggest downfall for employers and tribunals do not look favourable towards it. If it is redundancy then they should consider bumping, they have to legally, or seek alternatives for you.

i am assuming they are not saying redundancy and just that they no longer need you. Is there any potential discrimination angle you could go on? Maybe raise a grievance. I would also suggest submitting a Subject Access Request around key elements surrounding this. They have to disclose under ICO.

feel free to reach out to me. I am in HR with an employment law qualification and I hate employers who treat employees like this!!

This is nonsense. And you’re in HR ???? It’s already been established that the notice period falls short of the two year period. And if the OP has been there less than two years the employer doesn’t have to stick to the five fair reasons as long as the reason is not automatically unfair, discriminatory, or breaches laws on protected characteristics. She has already confirmed that they are making her redundant and her former duties will be split between the various members of staff she is training up. It’s not ideal, but it’s not illegal.

You don’t seem to have grasped the fact that the OP has no rights beyond protected characteristics because she has worked for them for less than two years, and if protected characteristics aren’t a factor, she can’t raise a grievance. And a SAR can be refused by the employer if they view it as vexatious, which would mean the OP would have to take them to court. What would be the point of all that when she has no problem with the situation beyond not wanting to be a staff trainer ?

AlisonDonut · 07/06/2023 10:28

Crikeyalmighty · 07/06/2023 09:57

Whilst people may not like @Loopsy123 advice, it is bang on correct. Under 2 years you only have protection on very limited grounds usually related to discrimination. The fact is it's very likely this company always saw this as a 2 year type role but didn't want for whatever reason to offer it as a 2 year contract. (And pay contractor rates if it's a pretty skilled role). What they have done isn't particularly ethical - but it isn't illegal. Maybe people should start taking an interest into some of the practices the government have sneaked in within recent years- often a bit below the radar.

How is it bang on correct when it is absolute garbage?

Florissante · 07/06/2023 09:59

Crikeyalmighty · 07/06/2023 09:57

Whilst people may not like @Loopsy123 advice, it is bang on correct. Under 2 years you only have protection on very limited grounds usually related to discrimination. The fact is it's very likely this company always saw this as a 2 year type role but didn't want for whatever reason to offer it as a 2 year contract. (And pay contractor rates if it's a pretty skilled role). What they have done isn't particularly ethical - but it isn't illegal. Maybe people should start taking an interest into some of the practices the government have sneaked in within recent years- often a bit below the radar.

I disagree. Loopsy's advice was terrible: raise a grievance, claim discrimination etc.

Crikeyalmighty · 07/06/2023 09:57

Whilst people may not like @Loopsy123 advice, it is bang on correct. Under 2 years you only have protection on very limited grounds usually related to discrimination. The fact is it's very likely this company always saw this as a 2 year type role but didn't want for whatever reason to offer it as a 2 year contract. (And pay contractor rates if it's a pretty skilled role). What they have done isn't particularly ethical - but it isn't illegal. Maybe people should start taking an interest into some of the practices the government have sneaked in within recent years- often a bit below the radar.

Hannahsbananas · 07/06/2023 09:54

That’s two supposed experts on the thread posting complete nonsense…

Florissante · 07/06/2023 09:33

Aprilx · 07/06/2023 09:29

You would be the last person on earth I would recommend OP reaches out to for advice.

Firstly it has already been confirmed umpteen times, that OP does not have and will not have two years of service at the time she is due to complete her notice period.

So no, the employer does not need a reason for dismissal, they can dismiss for any reason (so long as it is not discriminatory or automatically unfair) so long as they abide by the terms of the contract, e.g. provide the required notice. If they don’t do that, then OP would have a claim for wrongful dismissal but there is no indication that this is the case here. Even if the employer did have to provide one of the five fair reasons for dismissal, why wouldn’t SOSR fit in your opinion? It is a bit of a catch all, but as I say, they don’t have to do that anyway.

As an HR professional, why do you think it is appropriate to dream up discrimination claims or lodge spurious grievances. OP has not hinted at discrimination and the only “grievance” they have is that their employment has been terminated, but that is not a grievance in the employment sense of the word.

The employer has done nothing wrong here. It isn’t even wrong for them to ask OP to train people, that is a reasonable request of management, quite a sensible one in fact. I have never had “trainer” in my job description, but as you accumulate knowledge, most people will end up training / teaching others at some point.

Show quote history

Seriously. That post read as an ambulance-chasing lawyer looking for a client. "Have you been the victim of redundancy?

"Where there's claim there's game.

"Call me or visit my web site now for free advice on how you can play the victim and get a cash payout. Don't delay; call today and you may be a winner."

Aprilx · 07/06/2023 09:29

Loopsy123 · 06/06/2023 23:47

Does your 3 month notice take you up to the 2 years mark? Is your role permanent? Regardless of having no rights for unfair dismissal they still have to dismiss you for one of only 5 fair reasons and if it is redundancy that they are saying then they still need to consult with you, go through process etc. process is the biggest downfall for employers and tribunals do not look favourable towards it. If it is redundancy then they should consider bumping, they have to legally, or seek alternatives for you.

i am assuming they are not saying redundancy and just that they no longer need you. Is there any potential discrimination angle you could go on? Maybe raise a grievance. I would also suggest submitting a Subject Access Request around key elements surrounding this. They have to disclose under ICO.

feel free to reach out to me. I am in HR with an employment law qualification and I hate employers who treat employees like this!!

You would be the last person on earth I would recommend OP reaches out to for advice.

Firstly it has already been confirmed umpteen times, that OP does not have and will not have two years of service at the time she is due to complete her notice period.

So no, the employer does not need a reason for dismissal, they can dismiss for any reason (so long as it is not discriminatory or automatically unfair) so long as they abide by the terms of the contract, e.g. provide the required notice. If they don’t do that, then OP would have a claim for wrongful dismissal but there is no indication that this is the case here. Even if the employer did have to provide one of the five fair reasons for dismissal, why wouldn’t SOSR fit in your opinion? It is a bit of a catch all, but as I say, they don’t have to do that anyway.

As an HR professional, why do you think it is appropriate to dream up discrimination claims or lodge spurious grievances. OP has not hinted at discrimination and the only “grievance” they have is that their employment has been terminated, but that is not a grievance in the employment sense of the word.

The employer has done nothing wrong here. It isn’t even wrong for them to ask OP to train people, that is a reasonable request of management, quite a sensible one in fact. I have never had “trainer” in my job description, but as you accumulate knowledge, most people will end up training / teaching others at some point.

Florissante · 07/06/2023 09:13

I would never work for a company with an HR department that holds the views that Loopsy123 espouses.

PinkFrogss · 07/06/2023 07:48

Loopsy123 · 06/06/2023 23:47

Does your 3 month notice take you up to the 2 years mark? Is your role permanent? Regardless of having no rights for unfair dismissal they still have to dismiss you for one of only 5 fair reasons and if it is redundancy that they are saying then they still need to consult with you, go through process etc. process is the biggest downfall for employers and tribunals do not look favourable towards it. If it is redundancy then they should consider bumping, they have to legally, or seek alternatives for you.

i am assuming they are not saying redundancy and just that they no longer need you. Is there any potential discrimination angle you could go on? Maybe raise a grievance. I would also suggest submitting a Subject Access Request around key elements surrounding this. They have to disclose under ICO.

feel free to reach out to me. I am in HR with an employment law qualification and I hate employers who treat employees like this!!

I hope you didn’t pay for that qualification

Florissante · 07/06/2023 07:47

AlisonDonut · 07/06/2023 07:45

Is it worth reading the OPs posts before posting incorrect advice?

All you people do is keep upping the OPs hopes when the company have done nothing wrong here.

Show quote history

But how else will they passively-aggressively stick it to The Man?

AlisonDonut · 07/06/2023 07:45

Loopsy123 · 06/06/2023 23:47

Does your 3 month notice take you up to the 2 years mark? Is your role permanent? Regardless of having no rights for unfair dismissal they still have to dismiss you for one of only 5 fair reasons and if it is redundancy that they are saying then they still need to consult with you, go through process etc. process is the biggest downfall for employers and tribunals do not look favourable towards it. If it is redundancy then they should consider bumping, they have to legally, or seek alternatives for you.

i am assuming they are not saying redundancy and just that they no longer need you. Is there any potential discrimination angle you could go on? Maybe raise a grievance. I would also suggest submitting a Subject Access Request around key elements surrounding this. They have to disclose under ICO.

feel free to reach out to me. I am in HR with an employment law qualification and I hate employers who treat employees like this!!

Is it worth reading the OPs posts before posting incorrect advice?

All you people do is keep upping the OPs hopes when the company have done nothing wrong here.

Loopsy123 · 06/06/2023 23:47

Does your 3 month notice take you up to the 2 years mark? Is your role permanent? Regardless of having no rights for unfair dismissal they still have to dismiss you for one of only 5 fair reasons and if it is redundancy that they are saying then they still need to consult with you, go through process etc. process is the biggest downfall for employers and tribunals do not look favourable towards it. If it is redundancy then they should consider bumping, they have to legally, or seek alternatives for you.

i am assuming they are not saying redundancy and just that they no longer need you. Is there any potential discrimination angle you could go on? Maybe raise a grievance. I would also suggest submitting a Subject Access Request around key elements surrounding this. They have to disclose under ICO.

feel free to reach out to me. I am in HR with an employment law qualification and I hate employers who treat employees like this!!