Notice Period Worked when it wasn't required to be

[Openlaw15]

Re: Notice Period Worked when it wasn't required to be

So, I currently work for a large, national waste management company, where I handed in my notice on 07/12/15. Today, after returning home from work I have received a letter from them dated 29/12/15 that stipulates that I do not need to work my notice. Pretty stupid considering I only have one day left there on the 4th January and I have to go back to hand back my laptop etc back.

Question is what can be done about this, as nobody has notified me before today, even though I handed my notice in on the 7th December! My fiancee was heavily pregnant during the period I seemingly haven't been required to work, giving birth on 22nd December, yet I've been working under the false pretence that I should have been there.

I've emailed the CEO and his assistant directly already about it.

See letter attached.

Thank you!

**I was always thought of as the lateral legal thinker on my law courses. Here's what i would say, i think it's a reasoned view for any losses. You can put it in your own words.** I have worked for your company for X amount of years in Y position. Regrettably it was necessary for self recently to give notice of my resignation. I wish to inform you as to my losseshowever which came about owing to issues directly related to your company’s(name) policy or staff affecting notice.

I worked my notice as I was not informed that it was not necessary, which only came to my attention (state when). I do not know why I was not informed except I ought to have been made aware of the notice procedure from my immediate line-manager at the least prior to the affecting period ofnotice, where I would have then been put on alert to make the informed decision to cease working itself to avoid any such disadvantage. The facts were that on no occasion did the company’s staff, either individually or collectively, inform self of said situation, and in consequence without been notified to the contrary I worked my notice to my detriment/ disadvantage. The effect was that I have either lost 4 weeks payment or lost 28/ 31lieu days which would have otherwise transferred to a final payment to my benefit.

To remedy said losses it is my reasonable view in all the circumstances that my final payment from this company must take account of the days I worked during said notice period as though they were equivalent transferrable days in lieu. In its absence at the least I will commence legal action for contractualdamages proportionate to said losses.

[teaboy2]

Re: Notice Period Worked when it wasn't required to be

Ok, so who is responsible for that cock up and what, in your view, are the available remedies for the OP to compensate for that cock-up? Should the op just have to live with that although the loss to him is 4 weeks' wages? Or, should there be a remedy wherein the OP is paid the equivalent amount or damages (by way of contract) where that is not forthcoming?

If they paid him the equivalent amount in wages, then they would be paying him 4 weeks wages on top of the 4 (minus 1 day) weeks noticed period he had work. Resulting in an over payment of wages of 4 weeks (as a result of paying him 8 weeks wage for a 4 week notice period), that he is not contractually or legally entitled to receive!

Hes only entitled to payment in lieu (a compensatory payment for not allowing him to work the final day of his notice) for the 4th Jan - You can not simply demand transferable days in lieu for the whole notice period, just because they were late telling him they didn't need him to work his notice period. Hes also not been put at a financial disadvantage by their lateness, as he'll still get paid for the full 4 week period regardless! Nor has he been placed at a personal disadvantage either!

[mariefab]

Re: Notice Period Worked when it wasn't required to be

In the absence of a contracual clause stating otherwise, an employee only needs to give 1 week's notice.
So, why did you give 4 weeks?
Was it because that was the amount required by your written contract?

[RJH]

Re: Notice Period Worked when it wasn't required to be

In the absence of a contracual clause stating otherwise, an employee only needs to give 1 week's notice.
So, why did you give 4 weeks?
Was it because that was the amount required by your written contract?

[MENTION=26290]mariefab[/MENTION] - yes that is correct, my contract stated 4 weeks.

- - - Updated - - -

If they paid him the equivalent amount in wages, then they would be paying him 4 weeks wages on top of the 4 (minus 1 day) weeks noticed period he had work. Resulting in an over payment of wages of 4 weeks (as a result of paying him 8 weeks wage for a 4 week notice period), that he is not contractually or legally entitled to receive!

Hes only entitled to payment in lieu (a compensatory payment for not allowing him to work the final day of his notice) for the 4th Jan - You can not simply demand transferable days in lieu for the whole notice period, just because they were late telling him they didn't need him to work his notice period. Hes also not been put at a financial disadvantage by their lateness, as he'll still get paid for the full 4 week period regardless! Nor has he been placed at a personal disadvantage either!

[MENTION=19071]teaboy2[/MENTION] what would constitute a personal disadvantage?

The thing that annoys me the most about it is that I've been travelling to and from work each day incurring fuel / rail costs depending on the transport I've used when I haven't needed to be doing it.

[mariefab]

Re: Notice Period Worked when it wasn't required to be

OK. Does your contract say anything about garden leave or payment in lieu of notice?

[RJH]

Re: Notice Period Worked when it wasn't required to be

[MENTION=26290]mariefab[/MENTION], no it doesn't. See the attached photo, this is all it mentions in respect of handing in notice.

[mariefab]

Re: Notice Period Worked when it wasn't required to be

So, only the recent letter indicates that you didn't need to work your notice period.

In your place I'd wait and see what response you get from the emails you've already sent to the CEO and his assistant.
Because, as I'm sure you know, your company acquires a lot of it's employees after successful contract tenders. The ensuing TUPE process will mean that there'll be a lot of different employment contracts knocking about.
So, an alternate cock-up theory is that the information in the recent letter is incorrect because the Employee Services Administrator could have been looking at the wrong employment contract.

If it turns out that you didn't need to work your notice I think that perhaps you are entitled to an apology but I don't see any realistic claim.
I'm not saying that it would be impossible to get some kind of compensation. If you sent something like the letter suggested upthread I suppose they might pay you something just to make the issue disappear.
But what if they took the time and trouble to get legal advice and discovered that you had no legitimate cause of action. It might bite if you needed a reference, or any other form of goodwill, from them at some point in the future.

[RJH]

Re: Notice Period Worked when it wasn't required to be

[MENTION=26290]mariefab[/MENTION] if I haven't had an answer by the time I am leaving the building for the final time tomorrow, I will email him with words to the effect of that posted by [MENTION=77627]Openlaw15[/MENTION]. It's worth a shot as I've spent enough money on travel that needn't have been spent.

In terms of a reference, I have people who work there who will be in no way involved with this and they will provide me with references in the future should they be required.

Also, as you state, they are a big company which astounds me further as to why it's taken them 22 days to send me a letter from the date my notice was given.