Can my employer enforce a longer notice period than my signed contract?

[Localtwit]

I started a new role about 18 months ago, and my initial contract stated my notice period (upon passing my probation) was 3 months. After passing my probation period, I was issued with a permanent contract which has been signed and returned. This contract states the notice period is 1 month.

I believe it is an error on my employer's part, as colleagues on the same pay grade grumble about the length of notice required (which is excessive for the role).

Any advice on whether I can give the 1 month notice, or if my employer can say it was a mistake, and make me work the 3 months, would be appreciated, thank you.

Does the documents that says 1 month have anyone else's signature on it, or just your own?
Do they hold a copy of your signature accepting the old contract that said 3 months?
Does the replacement contract explicitly state in its preamble that ot supersedes any previous contract?

What are they going to do if you insist on a month and leave after a month? Are they petty or will they just spend the next month guilt tripping you?. Enforcing is very difficult. They might considering bringing a claim against you for losses due to you not working your notice but this is expensive and rare and as you’ve said notice is excessive for the type of job, very unlikely.

just be polite, explain you have a valid contract which says 1 month, you didn’t know it was an error and carry on as you are.

Similar happened to me and they could not enforce longer. They were not happy, even though I had actually given them about 6 weeks.

Your employer cannot simply say this is a mistake. They would have to show that you and they actually intended a 3 month notice period and had agreed it.

However, as the previous poster says, whatever notice period is in your contract there is little your employer can do to enforce it. They can in theory sue you if your departure causes a direct financial loss, but unless you are in a senior role or cause significant financial damage they are unlikely to succeed. In reality, the worst that is likely to happen is that they will never give you a reference, or they may say in a reference that you left without serving your full notice period.

You really dont know what you are talking about. If the contract/statement of particulars stipulates 1 month's notice that's the legal notice to be given and there are no losses on the employer's side.

They can’t enforce any notice period at all. If you went tomorrow and said you were leaving at lunchtime, nothing they can do.

Only 25+ years managing situations like this.

They can’t enforce 3 months. We had an issue a while back where HR incorrectly had the wrong notice periods on a number of contracts. We couldn’t change them without the employees permission (had to consult on it).

If you were staying, you employer could withhold discretionary pay rises and / or bonuses to coerce you to accept the revised terms but as you’re leaving they don’t have that leverage over you. They may be a pain with it comes to a reference mind.

I do however take a dim view of senior personnel who play games with their notice period. Yes it’s less than you’d expect in that role but you knew that (and I guess knew it was “wrong” vs your initial contract) so for me it comes down to living to the professional standards expected of someone of that seniority (in terms of handover etc). Unless it’s a toxic environment, I’d do the right thing and stay (or negotiate a compromise position eg 2 months).