Reply to: Permie jacks it in and walks

[northernrampage]

I've found with letting people go that if your manager really thinks you are a waste of space, they are happy for you to leave there and then. I bet this is what happened in this case, other employees look confused as they see it as unfair, but those who have to manage him are probably happy.

HR will have probably been glad to see the back of him as well. It's if you are quite good at your job that they often want you to stay for handover etc. One of my ex-bosses was on a 3 mth notice period but really wanted to leave for another job that would only wait 8 weeks. My overall boss had to be "begged'" by 2 other people to allow this to happen, despite the fact he'd basically demoted my boss who'd been doing a good job (HR had wanted to cut head-count).

Permanent jobs and management machinations suck. I did permie jobs for years, 7 years at one company and it's political hell.

[Tensai]

Also I know of cases where employees where asked to leave due to fraudulent and discriminating behaviour and they got glowing references.

My missus works for central govt, and they have a group of utter wastes of oxygen who they simply cannot fire (they virtually have to kill someone before getting booted.) Their line manager is usually desperate to get shot of them, so when they mention applying for a new internal role they are given a luminously fantastic reference. Only works if the poor sod interviewing the cretin is new and doesn't know this tactic. He/She soon learns though...

At least in the private sector you have some chance of getting rid of them before they retire on a nice fat index-linked pension.

[SueEllen]

Yes OK but the last employer has the option of giving no reference at all. Isn't that going to make the new employer put two and two together and realise that the person is trouble?

i.e. the new employer will think "why is old employer not giving a reference" Answer: Because they want to give a bad reference but are not allowed to legally. So they do the next best thing and say nothing.
So we better steer clear of the new person and not hire them

They may not get that job but the ex-employer is likely to receive an employment tribunal claim in the post for discrimination. Everyone can use age discrimination.

Even if your ex-employee doesn't win due to the time taken off from running your business and the costs of hiring a solicitor you will be about £10,000 out of pocket. It costs the employee nothing to lodge the claim.

If you don't hire a solicitor, and remember most businesses in this country are small businesses run by people who struggle to understand even basic employment law i.e. they need to pay workers even if they walk out of the job, then you increase the chances of you losing due to not acting properly. Awards for discrimination are limitless.

.

Or to put the question another way: What excuse do you or would you give to a company as to why your current employer/client is not giving you a reference, especially if you have been with them for over 6 months (say) so that experience would likely appear on your CV?

"My employer doesn't give references".

What is more likely to happen is that they write to the ex-employer for a reference and don't receive a response back, so the employee doesn't know either way.

Also I know of cases where employees where asked to leave due to fraudulent and discriminating behaviour and they got glowing references.

[NotAllThere]

... What excuse do you or would you give to a company as to why your current employer/client is not giving you a reference, especially if you have been with them for over 6 months (say) so that experience would likely appear on your CV?

Easy. "My former client has a policy of not giving references". It's even true.

[scooby]

Yes OK but the last employer has the option of giving no reference at all. Isn't that going to make the new employer put two and two together and realise that the person is trouble?

No, several Co's now dont even provide references, as they see this as safer.

[DimPrawn]

Companies cannot give a bad reference without facing the possibility of litigation. In this case the guy could reply to the courts saying he was bullied and stressed out so was forced to leave! (and now needs compensation).

Most companies have HR policies to just give the dates of employment - regardless of the reason leaving. They must also pay the guy for work done. If an employee wants to walk there is naff all an employer can or should attempt to do. After all this guy could have been off sick with stress for 3 months or worse!

If he's black or gay (preferably both) he's laughing. See you at the employment tribuneral.

[KentPhilip]

Lots of companies now only give references giving the dates worked and the job title. This is to prevent them being taken to court or tribunal.

Yes OK but the last employer has the option of giving no reference at all. Isn't that going to make the new employer put two and two together and realise that the person is trouble?
i.e. the new employer will think "why is old employer not giving a reference" Answer: Because they want to give a bad reference but are not allowed to legally. So they do the next best thing and say nothing.
So we better steer clear of the new person and not hire them.

Or to put the question another way: What excuse do you or would you give to a company as to why your current employer/client is not giving you a reference, especially if you have been with them for over 6 months (say) so that experience would likely appear on your CV?

[Turion]

Companies cannot give a bad reference without facing the possibility of litigation. In this case the guy could reply to the courts saying he was bullied and stressed out so was forced to leave! (and now needs compensation).

Most companies have HR policies to just give the dates of employment - regardless of the reason leaving. They must also pay the guy for work done. If an employee wants to walk there is naff all an employer can or should attempt to do. After all this guy could have been off sick with stress for 3 months or worse!

[SueEllen]

The other thing is how are they going to get a reference?

Lots of companies now only give references giving the dates worked and the job title. This is to prevent them being taken to court or tribunal.

I've seen two cases where this wasn't done.

One case legal proceedings occurred and the employer lost. The company that obtained the reference actually kept notes on how it was odd that the old employer bother to ring them up to give them the bad reference as well as sending a written one. The case would have never occurred if the old employer hadn't given this reference as it was about the treatment of the bloke during and after his employment.

The second case the reference was ignored due to it badly contradicting the other reference obtained and the reference being received 3 months after my mate started working for the new employer. If the employer who my mate had walked out on had told the truth then my mate would been in trouble. However due to stating things like so and so has poor time keeping, misses loads of days of work etc it had no impact.

[Advocate]

Which Co in NL?

[KentPhilip]

The other thing is how are they going to get a reference?

If their new employer/client asks for a reference from the old one, and the old one says they left without honouring their notice period and are therefore a complete tulip then they'll likely be sacked by the new company.

tulips to you n' all!

[NotAllThere]

1. He is obliged to come into work.

2. if it's 2-way, it protects the employer too.

3. replace him with a contractor for 3 months, and sue him for the cost of that, since that is their material loss from his breach of contract.

True of B2B contracts, but not employment.

1. Not in the UK - employment law mucks up the contract law (and anti-slavery laws prevent you obliging an employee to actually work.) The option is gardening leave or let them go. The best an employer can do is gardening leave until the end of the pay period.

2. If you can't oblige someone to come into work, and you can only enforce gardening leave over the payment period, then you can't enforce a 3 month notice period, unless you're paying them quarterly.

3. Possibly. So long as you kept paying the permie. As soon as you stop, he's free to go. And again, only for payment period.

Of course, this was back in 2000, when I was a permie manager working closely with HR over these very issues (also the problem of getting rid of useless permies - slow and difficult to do without going to tribunal and losing ). I suppose it's possible that NL have weakened employment rights for permies...

Note: when there is a demonstrable negative affect on the business - like all those trade secrets in your head - then some restrictive clauses can still be enforced.

Edit: to put it another way - it's contract breach, but there's little remedy available to the employer.

[SueEllen]

WHS.

The danger of doing this sort of thing is the company use it as a reason to withold your last month's salary. Not sure where you stand legally, but it would be a bit of a fight.

Legally if you have done the work they can't get away with not paying you and you can take legal action against them for this and throw in a few more claims for good measure to show that you had a good reason to walk out.

Luckily for most employers most employees don't know this.

However the employer is allowed to counter sue the employee for breach of contract which can be for more money than the month's salary.

If the employee takes legal action against the employer through in either a tribunal or small claims court it usually ends up costing the employer more money than the employee, due to solicitor's fees and other costs.

So virtually all small businesses I know where an employee tries this they pay up rather than be faced with claims from disgruntled employees.

[expat]

AIUI and IANAL...

The employer has one of two options.

1. Require him to stop working for the other company, continue to pay him for the duration of the notice period. He is not obliged to come into work. If they do this, and he carries on working for the other company, then they can sue him for breach of contract. Even then, if he started working for the other company after one month after giving notice (assuming paid monthly), court action wouldn't achieve anything.

2. Let him go.

In the UK at least, notice periods protect the employee, not the employer. many employers seem not to be aware of this when they stipulate 3, 6 or even 12 month notice periods. The exceptions are valid clauses to protect themselves against competitors.

1. He is obliged to come into work.

2. if it's 2-way, it protects the employer too.

3. replace him with a contractor for 3 months, and sue him for the cost of that, since that is their material loss from his breach of contract.

[VectraMan]

WHS.

The danger of doing this sort of thing is the company use it as a reason to withold your last month's salary. Not sure where you stand legally, but it would be a bit of a fight.

Back in my old permie job somebody walked out without notice on pay day, or so he thought. The company managed to not pay him by cancelling the whole BACS run (and pissing off everybody else by paying late) all to avoid giving this guy his final month's money.