I have a slightly odd situation with regards to my contractual notice period that I'd like to garner people's opinions on (educated or not).
The notice clause in my contract is:
If you follow the wording for, say, 4 complete years of service:
One month until you have been continuously employed for two years
Thereafter, notification entitlement increases by one week for each year of continuous employment
Therefore for 4 years employment, notice = One month + two weeks
However, it goes on to say that entitlement increases until you have completed 12 years of service, by which point your notice period is 12 weeks. That final condition doesn't fit at all with the rest of the clause. The initial entitlement of one month for two years is never revoked or converted to weeks, and the notice period specifically increases after that point.
Now, many of you will also know that the final condition is very similar to the statutory terms. The company have argued that the clause had intended to mirror the statutory terms but was worded incorrectly (I of course didn't agree). The company have now offered to give 6 weeks notice. This is 0.33r weeks less notice than I feel I am entitled to.
Is it worth arguing over this contractual clause for the sake of a third of a weeks' pay?
Does anyone have any experience with contradictory contract clauses?
Am I best off taking the offer?
Over to you OcUK!
The notice clause in my contract is:
Now, the pedants amongst you will have instantly noticed that the clause contradicts itself.My contract said:The length of notification to which you are entitled to receive from the Employer to terminate your employment, is one month until you have been continuously employed for two years. Thereafter, notification entitlement increases by one week for each year of continuous employment until you have completed 12 years of continuous employment after which time you will be entitled to 12 weeks notice.
If you follow the wording for, say, 4 complete years of service:
One month until you have been continuously employed for two years
Thereafter, notification entitlement increases by one week for each year of continuous employment
Therefore for 4 years employment, notice = One month + two weeks
However, it goes on to say that entitlement increases until you have completed 12 years of service, by which point your notice period is 12 weeks. That final condition doesn't fit at all with the rest of the clause. The initial entitlement of one month for two years is never revoked or converted to weeks, and the notice period specifically increases after that point.
Now, many of you will also know that the final condition is very similar to the statutory terms. The company have argued that the clause had intended to mirror the statutory terms but was worded incorrectly (I of course didn't agree). The company have now offered to give 6 weeks notice. This is 0.33r weeks less notice than I feel I am entitled to.
Is it worth arguing over this contractual clause for the sake of a third of a weeks' pay?
Does anyone have any experience with contradictory contract clauses?
Am I best off taking the offer?
Over to you OcUK!