Notice handed in getting nasty

[Ceist Beag]

Hi Ceist

I have just checked back the OP and he does not say that previous employees only had to give 4 to 6 weeks' notice despite the contract saying 3 months.

Brendan that's not what I asked. We appear to have stopped talking about the OP a number of pages back on this thread and are now discussing your view on what is moral and immoral as far as I can see! Again to ask my question on your post above.

So just to confirm, even though it doesn't suit you, in this circumstance you would break the agreement because you are justifying it on the basis that the current employer is simply spiting the employee! Isn't that immoral Brendan?

 

[Sunny]

Sunny we are far apart on the first principle.

If I enter into an agreement to sell my house to you for €200,000, I will honour it.

You won't if it does not suit you.

That is poles apart on this issue.

What's the first principle? Is that like the Prime Directive in Star Trek?!

Actually Brendan, I would probably honour it too. I said I mightn't buy a property if I could find one cheaper elsewhere. I know this won't make sense to you but I never said things were black and white.

No different to me thinking that a shop changing it's prices on it's goods when the customer gets to the cash register because someone else standing there wants it is wrong while a shopper deciding not to buy a product because the sales person at the register won't give them a discount to match the shop next door is perfectly entitled to walk out. Annoying for the shop but morally wrong???

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Brendan that's not what I asked. We appear to have stopped talking about the OP a number of pages back on this thread and are now discussing your view on what is moral and immoral as far as I can see! Again to ask my question on your post above.

No, you specifically referred to the OP in your post!

Originally Posted by Brendan Burgess http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=1389562#post1389562
Let's say someone asked me for my advice on the issue. They have accepted the new job and told them that they could start in 4 weeks. The employer wants them to serve out the terms of their contract, purely to spite them and not because it will be difficult to find and train a replacement. I would tell them that they should go to the new employer and tell them that they would have to wait for 13 weeks. If the new employer says that they would not keep the job open, then I would advise them to break their contract with their current employer. This is based on the very extraordinary situation of an employer simply spiting an employee.


Hang on now Brendan - you have just broken your own principle there and actually stated in the second post the very viewpoint that most people on this thread have advocated to the OP!!

So just to confirm, even though it doesn't suit you, in this circumstance you would break the agreement because you are justifying it on the basis that the current employer is simply spiting the employee! Isn't that immoral Brendan?

Let's be clear. I try to operate in a professional and honest manner. If I am offered a job, I would tell them that the notice period is 3 months, so I would not personally get into the hypothetical situation I have outlined.

But sometimes I am asked my opinion on an absolute mess. The employee has told the new employer that it is 4 weeks and now there is a serious mess arising from this. Combine this with the exceptional situation where the employer is purely spiting the employee. In other words, by breaking their contract, there is no loss to the employer. In these exceptional circumstances, which I have not encountered in real life, I would advocate breaking the contract as there is no cost to the other side.

If, on the other hand, leaving in 4 weeks would be disruptive to the employer, my advice would be to serve the contract.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

What's the first principle? Is that like the Prime Directive in Star Trek?!

We are making progress, so stick to the issue.

My guiding principle is that I honour my agreements. I think that most people actually would agree with this. It's a principle, which allows decisions to be made in the light of particular circumstances.

Actually Brendan, I would probably honour it too. I said I mightn't buy a property if I could find one cheaper elsewhere. I know this won't make sense to you but I never said things were black and white.

OK, I am glad that you would honour it too.

No different to me thinking that a shop changing it's prices on it's goods when the customer gets to the cash register because someone else standing there wants it is wrong while a shopper deciding not to buy a product because the sales person at the register won't give them a discount to match the shop next door is perfectly entitled to walk out. Annoying for the shop but morally wrong???

I have not come across a shop changing its price because there is only one left and two of us go for it at the same time.

I allow for typos and misprints, and I assume that the law does as well.. If something should be €1,000 and it's priced at €1 by mistake, I don't try to hold the retailer to it. Just as when a shop assistant gives me too much change, I point it out and fix it.

 

[Ceist Beag]

I think we're in agreement Brendan, however I think any point you made about morality is out the window based on this (you are clearly stating there are exceptions to the rule of never break an agreement where you have a choice).

 

[mandelbrot]

No, you specifically referred to the OP in your post!


Let's be clear. I try to operate in a professional and honest manner. If I am offered a job, I would tell them that the notice period is 3 months, so I would not personally get into the hypothetical situation I have outlined.

But sometimes I am asked my opinion on an absolute mess. The employee has told the new employer that it is 4 weeks and now there is a serious mess arising from this. Combine this with the exceptional situation where the employer is purely spiting the employee. In other words, by breaking their contract, there is no loss to the employer. In these exceptional circumstances, which I have not encountered in real life, I would advocate breaking the contract as there is no cost to the other side.

If, on the other hand, leaving in 4 weeks would be disruptive to the employer, my advice would be to serve the contract.

So your position is the same as mine would be, in those circumstances.

 

[mandelbrot]

I find this post from you very odd Mandelbrot. You're such a stickler for the law on revenue rules and procedures. Yet when it comes to employment contracts you are exactly the opposite?

But I'm contractually obliged Bronte!!

 

[Bronte]

Employment contracts are broken every day. My employer broke mine last night by ringing me at 8pm. Maybe I should have pointed out the legal situation and told him that he was acting immorally but oddly enough I don't think he would appreciate that. Is that fair? No. Is that the real world? Yes. Unless you think everyone should work to rule?

.

How is he ringing you at 8pm immoral. Is it not part of your working conditions that because of your level of job, your renumeration, the requirements of the work that on occasions it will be necessary for your employer to ring you outside of the usual working hours?

 

[mandelbrot]

How is he ringing you at 8pm immoral. Is it not part of your working conditions that because of your level of job, your renumeration, the requirements of the work that on occasions it will be necessary for your employer to ring you outside of the usual working hours?

Sunny didnt say it's immoral, you've just argued her point for her. (I reckon Sunny is female, I just can't agree with Brendan on anything here!)

 

[Bronte]

As an aside, I think unless and until the CEO of B&L is willing to accept a 20% pay reduction it is immoral to ask staff to do the same, but we'll see the pigs flying over Waterford before we see that happening.

In my experience of the corporate world, the CEO of B&L will be in line for a large bonus and pay rise if he pulls off the cost cutting. Bottom line is all that matters.

 

[Bronte]

Sunny didnt say it's immoral, you've just argued her point for her. (I reckon Sunny is female, I just can't agree with Brendan on anything here!)

Did I misunderstand Sunny - if I did perhaps she can clarify. Does she consider her boss ringing her at 8 pm immoral.

(In any case I'm still only at page 7 so will try and get on this when I see what happens next in the debate)

 

[Sunny]

So your position is the same as mine would be, in those circumstances.

Same as everyone's I think. I don't remember one person saying that the contract should be unilaterally broken if it was a legitimate clause inserted for good reason. I simpy pointed out that employee is perfectly entitled to let a court decide the rights and wrongs of the case if compromise can't be reached. Doesn't make the employee immoral and I stand over that.

 

[Sunny]

Sunny didnt say it's immoral, you've just argued her point for her. (I reckon Sunny is female, I just can't agree with Brendan on anything here!)

That's just my sensitive side shining through. All man!

 

[Sunny]

Did I misunderstand Sunny - if I did perhaps she can clarify. Does she consider her boss ringing her at 8 pm immoral.

(In any case I'm still only at page 7 so will try and get on this when I see what happens next in the debate)

No I don't consider it immoral. That's the point.

 

[Bronte]

First off, what makes you think say that people can't sue. People are perfectly entitled to sue and let a Court decide. Just because there isn't a signed contract doesn't legally mean there wasn't a contract. That's why we need expensive solicitors and barristers to argue different view points.

Secondly, what would you tell someone that came on AAM and said that they had an offer on a house accepted but no contracts had been signed. It was really going to push them financially but they think they might just be able to be able to make it work. Then an identical house came on the market that cost €30k less and put less stress on their personal finances. Would you tell them that

a) Their word is their bond and they should suck it up
b) Renegotiate but realise you have no negotiating power
c) Get legal advice to see if there are any legal repercussions for walking away and do what is right for them.

Not sure what you mean about suing, you cannot sue or imply a contract in relation to property where it is not a signed contract. The law is very clear on this. You are correct that a contract does not have to be in writing to be a contract, but for property it has to be signed. That is why nobody has ever been able to enforce a sale where there is no paperwork. (I await the legal eagles to prove me wrong) Conversly, particularly due to the bust, plenty of people who had signed contracts had them enforced on them. There are cases every so often of this kind in the newspapers.

In relation to your scenario, which we have had on AAM before. I consider the in the real world, where there is a price fall, people can and do negotiate down. For clarity c) does not apply, some people consider their word is their bond and would go with a), but most people will go for b) renegotiate, the seller would have to take the hit.

 

[Bronte]

Lets say the contract says 3 months notice, but no-one in the place is ever actually asked to work in the full notice period.

so you, for whatever reason, have an offer elsewhere and think it's safe to assume that 4 - 6 weeks notice shouldn't be a problem

But then, for purely personal reasons, the MD decides that they are going to make your life difficult

It is not relevant to the discussion what happened in the case of other employees normally not having to serve full notice. And it's a very foolish person who would assume this. And worse is the person who accepts a new job offer without telling the new boss that there is a contractual requirement of 3 months notice.

It is highly unlikely in a scenario where the boss normally lets people go early that a boss would for a personal reason treat you differently unless there was some problems between you.

 

[Bronte]

There is nothing in the conveyancing laws to stop me from sueing a person who pulled out of a sale and left me with expenses. I mightn't be able to enforce the contract but I could recover costs.

How would that work? Has there ever been such a case. People have expenses all the time in relation to property, broker fee, solicitor fee for looking up title, engineer's fee. You don't sue the seller if it all falls through - before a contract is signed. Even if a contract is signed, and you have all those costs, if the sale falls through, for example there is an issue with planning that means your solicitor won't sign the title, you don't sue the seller because of it?

 

[Sunny]

Not sure what you mean about suing, you cannot sue or imply a contract in relation to property where it is not a signed contract. The law is very clear on this. You are correct that a contract does not have to be in writing to be a contract, but for property it has to be signed. That is why nobody has ever been able to enforce a sale where there is no paperwork. (I await the legal eagles to prove me wrong) Conversly, particularly due to the bust, plenty of people who had signed contracts had them enforced on them. There are cases every so often of this kind in the newspapers.

In relation to your scenario, which we have had on AAM before. I consider the in the real world, where there is a price fall, people can and do negotiate down. For clarity c) does not apply, some people consider their word is their bond and would go with a), but most people will go for b) renegotiate, the seller would have to take the hit.

Sorry Bronte but you making me go over old ground! Just because you can't sue to enforce the contract doesn't mean you can't sue to recover costs you have incurred in the process up to then. Whether you want to and whether you would win is up to you and a court. Brendan seemed to consider it immoral because the seller would have incurred costs. I am simply pointing out that there are remidies for that.

 

[Bronte]

Now I am off to watch a few hours of Judge Judy where people with my morals hang out!

That was an excellent post on the real world Sunny.

You will obviously be well aware of the ramifications of car purchase on loan or engagement rings and contractual obligations with morals thrown in for good measure.

 

[Bronte]

Just because you can't sue to enforce the contract doesn't mean you can't sue to recover costs you have incurred in the process up to then. .

Ok, you and I will have to disagree on this being possible in relation to house purchase in Ireland.