Given notice at work

[Forgotwhat]

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?

I’d get signed off with ‘stress’ by the GP. Nothing they can do about it!!

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

If you need a reference this may not help however I believe if they are making you redundant they have to give you time off to interview etc. I would perhaps see if you can book appts to get advice on CV, interview practice and then set up lots of interviews.

You're obligated to work your notice, but highly unlikely they'd take any legal action if you didn't. May show up in a reference though.

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.

She should check her contract doesn't link the successful end of probationary period with extended rights, perhaps overriding the minimal statutory rights.

Now in my opinion it is clear the company is operating in bad faith here, and planned to from the beginning. That might not have much legal weight, but hopefully it would have some negotiation weight - shorter notice period, or gardening leave, or 2 days off for reasonable job hunting aspects. These are all reasonable requests. You can hardly be asked to do three months work and be dismissed at the same time. The three months notice is for the employee's benefit, not the employer's.

If they're unreasonable with these, then this is where you know they are being utterly awful, and all good will has gone.

In this case, ignore what they demand (come in 5 days a week for the period, no job hunting, no leave). What are they going to do, sack you? This is the situation where you pull the emergency childcare card ('my income is suddenly at risk, I cannot afford childcare for the summer holidays'), then the stress card, but some jobs do ask if you've been signed off work (is that even legal?). But only if they are utterly unreasonable.

If they are reasonable, then do a work-to-rule handover - some wiki/sharepoint documentation, a couple of handover meetings, best spend time making those process/system diagrams look pretty. Creating training material takes a lot of time, that's why training courses are so expensive. Two hour lunches. Make sure your leaving do is an entire afternoon (your coworkers didn't do this). Maybe say 'everything handed over, i'm available on 07xxxx' with a week or two to go.

The aim is some relaxed months over summer, lunchtime pints in the sun, getting another job lined up for the Monday after your exit date. The last thing you need is stress, because you might have to take time off...

I have been made redundant twice. Once, I demanded they made me redundant after a material change in my working practices they imposed upon me (forcing me to work from home after closing an office, I didn't mind that, but in the end I wanted out and used that). The second time the company found me another role internally very quickly.

A former boss of mine argued for and secured an incentive payment for me (and others) when our whole team was made redundant 12ish years ago. (Incentive to keep working during notice period given the difficult situ). Worth looking into if you have to stay.

Love this.

Go sick for 3 months off with stress

Oh, please.

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.

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

I hope you didn’t pay for that qualification

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

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.

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."

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

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.

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

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 ?

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

@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!!

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

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.