Can an employer prevent you from handing in your notice?
Discussion
Can anyone offer some advise regarding the following situation? I accepted a job offer from a previous employer the terms of which were quite simple. They would have my back as long as I agreed to not leave within eighteen months. This has been written into my contract which I have signed. On reflection I regret making such a snap decision, but I needed the job and was presented with the option of 'accept it now or I will offer it to someone else'.
Am I now locked in? Can an employer stipulate such terms? Does anyone know where I am likely to stand should I wish to move on before the eighteen months are up?
Cheers
Am I now locked in? Can an employer stipulate such terms? Does anyone know where I am likely to stand should I wish to move on before the eighteen months are up?
Cheers
If you leave before the 18 months is up then its clear breach of contract and they could, quite easily, have you for it.
It would, of course, depend on how they were feeling. What was their reason for stipulating that clause? Did they have to pay someone else to take you on? Are you critical to a project they have on-going at the moment?
It would, of course, depend on how they were feeling. What was their reason for stipulating that clause? Did they have to pay someone else to take you on? Are you critical to a project they have on-going at the moment?
I am not an employment solicitor but we employ many people in fixed term contracts and have been through this issue with numerous sets of solicitors.
As an employer, you cannot force somebody to work, end of.
What you can do is sue them for breach of contract and claim liquidated damages. However, enforcing that is not so straightforward; even winning the case is not the endpoint as getting your damages and costs back is another story.
As an employer, you cannot force somebody to work, end of.
What you can do is sue them for breach of contract and claim liquidated damages. However, enforcing that is not so straightforward; even winning the case is not the endpoint as getting your damages and costs back is another story.
arguti said:
I am not an employment solicitor but we employ many people in fixed term contracts and have been through this issue with numerous sets of solicitors.
As an employer, you cannot force somebody to work, end of.
What you can do is sue them for breach of contract and claim liquidated damages. However, enforcing that is not so straightforward; even winning the case is not the endpoint as getting your damages and costs back is another story.
So it is, legally, breach of contract. But as you say, whats the point in enforcing it unless there is something else in the background other than simply swapping his time for their money?As an employer, you cannot force somebody to work, end of.
What you can do is sue them for breach of contract and claim liquidated damages. However, enforcing that is not so straightforward; even winning the case is not the endpoint as getting your damages and costs back is another story.
They did not have to pay someone else to take me on. The clause was to ensure I was retained for a project that was expected but has now not been ordered to date. I would not be particulary concerned but I also had to agree to a 25% pay cut.
I am thankful to have a job but clearly want to improve my financial position. I will give ACAS a call.
I am thankful to have a job but clearly want to improve my financial position. I will give ACAS a call.
If, at the time of hiring you, there was clear discussion that you were being hired on the basis of a forthcoming contract - which hasn't now happened - then I'd say it's fair for you both to reassess the situation.
If you look around you within the company, are there still opportunities equivalent to those which would have existed had the contract happened? Do those opportunities match with what you want to do? If not, then if it was me I'd have a word with someone about the opportunities and plans for me, and if there was any merit in revisiting my own contract - given the discussions during the hiring process. That at least could open a fresh discussion - if they're sensible and willing to be open about things. From their side, they hired someone and (tried to) locked them in to staying for a specific piece of work which hasn't materialised. Unless thay have other things either there already or in the immediate pipleine, then they have a problem and possibly internal and costly embarrassment.
If you look around you within the company, are there still opportunities equivalent to those which would have existed had the contract happened? Do those opportunities match with what you want to do? If not, then if it was me I'd have a word with someone about the opportunities and plans for me, and if there was any merit in revisiting my own contract - given the discussions during the hiring process. That at least could open a fresh discussion - if they're sensible and willing to be open about things. From their side, they hired someone and (tried to) locked them in to staying for a specific piece of work which hasn't materialised. Unless thay have other things either there already or in the immediate pipleine, then they have a problem and possibly internal and costly embarrassment.
There are certainly opportunities within but because I have left and then come back I am now deliberately being left out of important projects and given somewhat menial jobs. I previously held a senior role within the company so they can certainly benefit from my experience and skills.
What concerns me is that my next eighteen months will continue like this and sitting it out does not appeal. Whilst I understand that leaving would be a breach of contract, I am not sure if they are legally allowed to impose such a condition in the first place? If they could then any employer could prevent staff from leaving for any specified amount of time?
I did not have time to obtain legal advice as the job offer was conditional on accepting pretty much straight away.
Playing devils advocate it was good of them to accept me back, it's a job after all. However I now feel they took full advantage of my situation, a situation that would not have occurred if I had been treated fairly by them in the first place.
What concerns me is that my next eighteen months will continue like this and sitting it out does not appeal. Whilst I understand that leaving would be a breach of contract, I am not sure if they are legally allowed to impose such a condition in the first place? If they could then any employer could prevent staff from leaving for any specified amount of time?
I did not have time to obtain legal advice as the job offer was conditional on accepting pretty much straight away.
Playing devils advocate it was good of them to accept me back, it's a job after all. However I now feel they took full advantage of my situation, a situation that would not have occurred if I had been treated fairly by them in the first place.
raredevil said:
There are certainly opportunities within but because I have left and then come back I am now deliberately being left out of important projects and given somewhat menial jobs. I previously held a senior role within the company so they can certainly benefit from my experience and skills.
What concerns me is that my next eighteen months will continue like this and sitting it out does not appeal. Whilst I understand that leaving would be a breach of contract, I am not sure if they are legally allowed to impose such a condition in the first place? If they could then any employer could prevent staff from leaving for any specified amount of time?
I did not have time to obtain legal advice as the job offer was conditional on accepting pretty much straight away.
Playing devils advocate it was good of them to accept me back, it's a job after all. However I now feel they took full advantage of my situation, a situation that would not have occurred if I had been treated fairly by them in the first place.
I think your question has been answered quite well already. Just because it's in your contract doesn't mean they can enforce it. And even if they do want to try, they might not get anywhere and it'll be at some sort of cost to them.What concerns me is that my next eighteen months will continue like this and sitting it out does not appeal. Whilst I understand that leaving would be a breach of contract, I am not sure if they are legally allowed to impose such a condition in the first place? If they could then any employer could prevent staff from leaving for any specified amount of time?
I did not have time to obtain legal advice as the job offer was conditional on accepting pretty much straight away.
Playing devils advocate it was good of them to accept me back, it's a job after all. However I now feel they took full advantage of my situation, a situation that would not have occurred if I had been treated fairly by them in the first place.
Also what exactly did you sign, as in how was it worded? Are they just as locked into keeping you for 18 months.... as in they can't fire you?
If you don't like it there, have a shop around. If something comes up speak to your current employer. I mean at the end of the day do they really want a disgruntled employee in their office for 18 months?
300bhp/ton said:
If you don't like it there, have a shop around. If something comes up speak to your current employer. I mean at the end of the day do they really want a disgruntled employee in their office for 18 months?
I think this is a good approach. If I have options then I have options...whereas at the moment I don't think I have any. If an opportunity comes up it gives me something to negotiate with again.I appreciate all the other advice others have offered as well. If I could see prospects on the horizon then the lock in would be irrelevant, but at the moment I see none.
The lock in was based upon an order for a project being received with 12 weeks of commencing the employment (stated in a job offer letter), but additional terms were then imposed in my contract to a specified date before which I could not hand my notice in. I signed both (idiot I know).
raredevil said:
Playing devils advocate it was good of them to accept me back, it's a job after all. However I now feel they took full advantage of my situation, a situation that would not have occurred if I had been treated fairly by them in the first place.
Playing devil's advocate - they were so sure of getting the contract/job that possibly they had a panic when they realised that they didn't have someone with the experience to handle it. They jumped at the chance to get you on board; pressuring you to sign up quickly to ease their minds and make them more confident in any final hitches e.g. put someone key in front of the client; attempting to lock you in on a contract.As said above, the terms of the contract are likely to be unenforceable. There may well be several challenges to it.
As for references, I don't think there would be a problem - provided you conducted things in a decent way. Souds like at the moment they're paying someone very over qualified to do a range of tasks not wholly suited to them, just to make use of them, and probably costing a lot more than such a person should. Whichever way you offer the company a way out of this, they'd be stupid not to take it. They're unlikely to be the first to offer a way out because that action probably has much more implications for them.
ok, i'm not a lawyer but i've been through this from the employers perspective.
If you left they could bring a case against you for breach of contract but as they actually have to prove the damage you've caused to the company by leaving it's virtually impossible for someone of (no offence) a relatively junior level to cause them to incur substantial costs.
Were you a CEO who's loss could affect a share price or incur substantial recruitment costs to replace then they might do something.
In practice you can leave and nothing will happen.
If you left they could bring a case against you for breach of contract but as they actually have to prove the damage you've caused to the company by leaving it's virtually impossible for someone of (no offence) a relatively junior level to cause them to incur substantial costs.
Were you a CEO who's loss could affect a share price or incur substantial recruitment costs to replace then they might do something.
In practice you can leave and nothing will happen.
raredevil said:
Tempting, but what to say to a new employer? They would ask for references... 
Something worth noting.-while employers often ask for references, they might well not follow up on them. Too time consuming and hassle and often for not a lot of gain. The fact that you produce a reference is usually enough.
-legally I don't believe you can be given a bad reference. A previous employer can refuse to give you a reference, but that's about it.
-a lot of references are nothing more than confirming you worked for 'x' company for 'y' period. Nothing more nothing less.
-I suspect if you explained to a potential new employer, anyone half reasonable and able to use a little common sense would understand your situation.
-Could you not use a fellow colleague as a reference rather than the actually company?
Either way, I certainly would let it put you off.
300bhp/ton said:
-legally I don't believe you can be given a bad reference. A previous employer can refuse to give you a reference, but that's about it.
That is not correct at all. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3065319.stmGassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff