Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To work these notice periods are ridiculous?

86 replies

Duckingella · 03/06/2024 10:35

Company DH works for has a new owner;new order has issued new contracts.

DH has read new contract after receiving it this morning and found that the new owner wants a notice period of 6 weeks for employees who have been there less than one month and 12 weeks for those there more than one month.

I personally feel a 12 week notice period basically make it impossible for anyone to get a new job as not many potential employers would be prepared to wait 3 months to fill a position once a job offer is made.

As above 6 weeks is still a long time to wait.

I think a more reasonable notice period should be 1 week for less than a months service and 4 weeks after that.

OP posts:
Testina · 03/06/2024 10:48

3 months notice is standard in my industry from the first line of management up.

lanthanum · 03/06/2024 10:47

Yes, the notice periods are normally the same either way. When DH's company closed their UK office they discovered that the staff were on a mix of 1/3/6 month notice periods, and they had to keep paying them.

You might want to read up on the TUPE regulations, which govern changes to contract when a company changes ownership. This is an interesting one though, as they can't force changes unless they are an improvement, and because notice periods are two way, it's not clear which way this one goes.

If there's any risk of restructuring under the new ownership, a longer notice period might be an advantage.

LeahMoo · 03/06/2024 10:46

I'm in a senior role and on 3 months notice, employers know at those levels they are likely waiting 3 months for the right candidate.

SnapdragonToadflax · 03/06/2024 10:46

Three months is very normal in more senior roles (basically any management) in my industry, and the recruiter would expect the new person to have that length of notice. They do sometimes get negotiated down, but that's a bonus rather than an expectation.

A month is normal for less senior roles, so six weeks is a bit more than that but not a big deal. I recruit regularly for lower level roles and a six week wait would be fine. We might favour someone who could start earlier if it was between two very good candidates, but generally we'd rather wait for someone good than get someone in quickly.

Deliaskis · 03/06/2024 10:44

3 months is pretty standard for many companies for all but the most junior/transient roles. 6 weeks in first month is odd, as up to 6 months is usually a probation period and only very limited notice required on either side (often 1 week but in reality is often immediate if both parties agree it is not working out). After the 6 months probation is passed then yes 3 months is very normal and that's what we expect to wait when recruiting in.

Labraradabrador · 03/06/2024 10:43

Same as above, 3 months is standard in my industry (professional services) and I have been on 6 months notice as a senior person. As someone who has hired a good number of people you just factor it into your planning. I would always wait a few extra months for the better candidate and their notice period wouldn’t factor at all into my decision.

it might be different in other industries, though.

5foot5 · 03/06/2024 10:41

DH's last job he was on 6 months. However, his employer knew that he was coming up to retirement.

Dryplate · 03/06/2024 10:40

Is that across the board for all posts? 3 months is very normal for middle management up IME

tfresh · 03/06/2024 10:39

You can look at the bright side, if they want to get rid of him they've gotta give 3 months that way as well

PricklyPearNoThornsPlease · 03/06/2024 10:38

Depends on the sector, really.

3 months is perfectly standard in my area, 6 months for senior people (though that is often negotiated down)

nootropiccoffee · 03/06/2024 10:37

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.