Tweet
A family member works as a contractor, they were offered a role with a company that had never employed/engaged with a contractor before, but they were so impressed they hired the contractor based on what they could deliver, during such negotiations, the contractor stated that they could hit the ground running, and if the employer didn't see their impact in the role within the first 3 weeks they'd gladly leave, the contractor being confident that they would make an impact.
Three week passed and the contractor held to their statement, of which they had made a significant impact, at this point the employer felt at ease and only at this stage did both parties agree remuneration from which the contractor also agreed 4 weeks notice period with their employer (the guy who was also the director of the company), that was all verbally agreed - shook hands on.
Later (9months) the business wasn't doing so well, so the employer let the contractor go with a stipulation they will be afforded 1 weeks notice on garden leave or if needed to clear a desk and hand over, they can be in the office.
The contractor decided to be on garden leave, having been served notice handed all things, keys etc back to the employer.
The next day after realising the bombshell that they've been let go without the 4 weeks notice, and only been offered 1 week, they contacted the employer to raise their claim, from which the employer said they'd have to look into it - yet it was the director they had spoken to (should have recollected what they had agreed/negotiated).
Two days passed and the employer (director) phoned the contractor (as the employer phoned a business phone, the call was recorded) to discuss the notice period from which the employer offered the contractor 2 weeks notice - as a compromise, stating they would never have offered 4 weeks; as its unheard of, the company never hire contractors or offer more than 2 weeks notice- was the employers argument. The contractor stated that they were confident from their negotiations with the employer before being employed that it was a 4 week notice period, as that is what the contractor had based their decisions on, coupled with their working relationship, flexibility within their role, to turn down several roles elsewhere being head hunted throughout the period they were employed by the current employer.
The contractor argued and highlighted promissory estoppel that all their decisions to stay within the company (whilst being head hunted elsewhere) were based on what was agreed under negotiations, where considerations were made by the contractor weighing up the pros and cons to stay or leave. Again, the contractor was told they'd have to wait for a decision, as it would need to be looked into further (by the director).
Finally, the employer sent an email two days after, to the contractor where they now claimed that 1 weeks is all the contractor is afforded - the employer made no ref to the 2 weeks offered verbally - but refuted and rejected that 4 weeks would have ever been offered.
Questions - under the circumstances above, is promissory estoppel strong enough to argue/win in court? as the employer offered 2 weeks as a compromise (recorded business conversation) to the 4 weeks the contractor understood to be in place, by offering the 2 weeks has the employer opened himself up for the 4 weeks? I'm unsure of the case law, but by making an offer to the contractor the employer is acknowledging the 4 weeks notice period and attempting to limit their liability in agreement? and offering less.
I'm new on this forum, if I have posted in the wrong area my apologies, however, I look forward to reading your replies. Thanks.
Three week passed and the contractor held to their statement, of which they had made a significant impact, at this point the employer felt at ease and only at this stage did both parties agree remuneration from which the contractor also agreed 4 weeks notice period with their employer (the guy who was also the director of the company), that was all verbally agreed - shook hands on.
Later (9months) the business wasn't doing so well, so the employer let the contractor go with a stipulation they will be afforded 1 weeks notice on garden leave or if needed to clear a desk and hand over, they can be in the office.
The contractor decided to be on garden leave, having been served notice handed all things, keys etc back to the employer.
The next day after realising the bombshell that they've been let go without the 4 weeks notice, and only been offered 1 week, they contacted the employer to raise their claim, from which the employer said they'd have to look into it - yet it was the director they had spoken to (should have recollected what they had agreed/negotiated).
Two days passed and the employer (director) phoned the contractor (as the employer phoned a business phone, the call was recorded) to discuss the notice period from which the employer offered the contractor 2 weeks notice - as a compromise, stating they would never have offered 4 weeks; as its unheard of, the company never hire contractors or offer more than 2 weeks notice- was the employers argument. The contractor stated that they were confident from their negotiations with the employer before being employed that it was a 4 week notice period, as that is what the contractor had based their decisions on, coupled with their working relationship, flexibility within their role, to turn down several roles elsewhere being head hunted throughout the period they were employed by the current employer.
The contractor argued and highlighted promissory estoppel that all their decisions to stay within the company (whilst being head hunted elsewhere) were based on what was agreed under negotiations, where considerations were made by the contractor weighing up the pros and cons to stay or leave. Again, the contractor was told they'd have to wait for a decision, as it would need to be looked into further (by the director).
Finally, the employer sent an email two days after, to the contractor where they now claimed that 1 weeks is all the contractor is afforded - the employer made no ref to the 2 weeks offered verbally - but refuted and rejected that 4 weeks would have ever been offered.
Questions - under the circumstances above, is promissory estoppel strong enough to argue/win in court? as the employer offered 2 weeks as a compromise (recorded business conversation) to the 4 weeks the contractor understood to be in place, by offering the 2 weeks has the employer opened himself up for the 4 weeks? I'm unsure of the case law, but by making an offer to the contractor the employer is acknowledging the 4 weeks notice period and attempting to limit their liability in agreement? and offering less.
I'm new on this forum, if I have posted in the wrong area my apologies, however, I look forward to reading your replies. Thanks.
Comment