Odd situation with contractual notice period

Soldato
Joined
16 Jul 2004
Posts
14,075
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:
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.
Now, the pedants amongst you will have instantly noticed that the clause contradicts itself.

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! :p
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jul 2004
Posts
20,079
Location
Stanley Hotel, Colorado
4 years would be 1 month for your first two years then an increase of 1 week for the two years served there after so thats a total of 6 weeks

Im not sure about your point about being there 12 years. I wouldnt bother arguing personally unless your union agrees on some sort of general principle
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
16 Jul 2004
Posts
14,075
4 years would be 1 month for your first two years then an increase of 1 week for the two years served there after so thats a total of 6 weeks
A month isn't four weeks - and I'm pretty sure I've read a regulation specifically stating that a "month" is a calendar month, therefore one's salary divided by 12 in these cases.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jan 2006
Posts
4,525
My interpretation of it would be that you are entitled to 6 weeks notice period, assuming you've worked there for 4 years which you don't actually state?

If you had worked 10+ years then I would imagine you would have a case.

EDIT: Seems I've missed the point, are you disputing that 1 month should be 31/30 days not 4 weeks?
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
16 Jul 2004
Posts
14,075
Yup, Rusty_Noob - that's it. I am disputing that a month should be a calendar month, and so for any calculations should be calculated as salary / 12.

In reference to the slightly ambiguous contract, I've heard that in these cases employees have the benefit of ambiguity. Does anyone know this for sure?
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
24 Oct 2002
Posts
14,162
Location
Bucks and Edinburgh
The 12 week thing is just a legal entitlement. Notice period is one week for every year worked up to a maximum of 12 years, that is covered in law aside from contractual notice. It is just that your contract has covered that point.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Posts
4,878
It would be pointless to argue for such a small gain (if you win), The amount you are entiltled to seems quite straight forward and to argue over whether a month is a calender one or one based on the amount of days is a bit of a stretch.

You obviously get paid by the calender month (I would assume) so the first part of the clause is self contained in that it states one months notice is required until two years service is complete. The second part of the clause can be argued to be separate to the first in that the company state clearly that for each year of service you will be entitled to one weeks notice. It doesnt state that it automatically follows on from the month you were entitled to during the first two years of service. I agree it is ambiguous and poorly worded, but I can't see you winning any case you may bring because of this.

It is common practice to pay a month as four weeks when using this system.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
5,538
I'd be more concerned that it states you get 4 weeks at 2 years, and then you acrue 1 week per year for a further 10 years - that makes 14.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Posts
4,878
Good point, but it can be seen to give one months notice plus a week for each subsequent year until 12 years service when it reverts to 12 weeks notice. this could mean that at 11 years service you would be better off than at 12.

The OP though, are you going to get paid for one month, plus the 2 weeks, or are you going to get paid for 6 weeks?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
24 Sep 2005
Posts
35,487
Year 1: One month
Year 2: One month
Year 3: One month + 1 week (~5 weeks)
Year 4: One month + 2 weeks (~6 weeks)
Year 5: One month + 3 weeks (~7 weeks)
Year 6: One month + 4 weeks (~8 weeks)
Year 7: One month + 5 weeks (~9 weeks)
Year 8: One month + 6 weeks (~10 weeks)
Year 9: One month + 7 weeks (~11 weeks)
Year 10: One month + 8 weeks (~12 weeks)
Year 11: One month + 9 weeks (~13 weeks)
Year 12+: 12 weeks

There is nothing contradictory in the language of the clause. It has been drafted so that you get more time in year 11 than the later years - this was probably a mistake.

It's really not a big deal IMO. You are contesting about a weeks notice post 10 years employment. You don't even know if you will be there for 10 years and even then, it's negligible in the grand scheme of things.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
5,538
The Statuatory notice is 2 weeks at 2 years then 1 week per year until 12 years (a maximum of 12 weeks).

They've obviously decided to modify that to give 1 months notice after 2 years in their contracts but carelessly not modified the statuatory text to account for the 11th and 12th year of service.

Noobs.

The weeks vs months thing is just a legal definition - you wouldn't get anywhere with it.
 
Associate
Joined
21 Jul 2008
Posts
1,732
Location
Outside the asylum
Is there a risk of the employer withdrawing the job offer because they felt you were showing signs of being awkward or argumentative over a trivial point? This would seem worse than having 2 or 3 fewer days to find a new job if they ever did terminate your employment.

I agree the clause isn't worded too well though. I'd view it as how long would I have to find another job? Looking at it from a 'how long before the pay stops?' point of view seems a bit negative.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
16 Jul 2004
Posts
14,075
Firstly, thanks for all the replies.
It doesnt state that it automatically follows on from the month you were entitled to during the first two years of service.
I think you sort of change your mind later on, but it does specifically say that "Thereafter, notification entitlement increases by one week for each year..." etc.
The OP though, are you going to get paid for one month, plus the 2 weeks, or are you going to get paid for 6 weeks?
They are proposing six weeks. I am throwing out to OcUK the possibility of arguing one month + two weeks (6.33r)
There is nothing contradictory in the language of the clause. It has been drafted so that you get more time in year 11 than the later years - this was probably a mistake.
True... I suppose it isn't so much a contradiction as a very odd clause.
Noobs.

The weeks vs months thing is just a legal definition - you wouldn't get anywhere with it.
I'm with you on the "noobs" thing - they've clearly screwed up. In terms of weeks vs months, I think the very point that they both have very clear legal definitions gives the argument for 6.33r weeks some legs.
Is there a risk of the employer withdrawing the job offer because they felt you were showing signs of being awkward or argumentative over a trivial point? This would seem worse than having 2 or 3 fewer days to find a new job if they ever did terminate your employment.
Ermm, soon I'm going to be being given my notice, so I'm not overly fussed about them withdrawing the offers they've made! :p
 
Associate
Joined
23 May 2005
Posts
387
Seems to me they just stuffed that clause in the contract, I would imagine that month should be saying week, unless you work in an industry where people don't stay long and one months notice would be an incentive to employees.

Oh and one month != four weeks, get your extra days.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
16 Jul 2004
Posts
14,075
Seems to me they just stuffed that clause in the contract, I would imagine that month should be saying week, unless you work in an industry where people don't stay long and one months notice would be an incentive to employees.
It's a relatively complex situation, but I work for a company that was purchased by another one around 18 months ago. They have decided now to close it down.

The other company's terms are four weeks notice up until four years of service and then an additional week for every year of service up until 12 weeks. So, similar in the years one and two but less advantageous after two years:

2 years = 4 weeks
4 years = 4 weeks
6 years = 6 weeks
12 years = 12 weeks
14 years = 14 weeks
Oh and one month != four weeks, get your extra days.
And yes, I think I will. I will wait until the terms of the redundancy are just about to be settled (in order for this not to impact any efforts the company may make before) and then demand the 0.33r weeks.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
21 Jul 2008
Posts
1,732
Location
Outside the asylum
Ermm, soon I'm going to be being given my notice, so I'm not overly fussed about them withdrawing the offers they've made! :p

Ah - many apologies, I read the "taking the offer" bit and obviously jumped to completely the wrong conclusion. Note to self: must read posts more carefully before replying.

On the off-chance that you are being paid-off and not expected to work through your notice period then have a read up on PILON (Pay In Lieu Of Notice). IIUC, your employer can offer to give you a sum equal to your notice period salary as compensation for breach of contract (not letting you work the notice period), which up to certain limits is tax free. It doesn't cost the employer any more but would need their cooperation/agreement.

I hope it all works out to your advantage.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
16 Jul 2004
Posts
14,075
As you can imagine from the bad wording of the notice clause, there's a few PILON-impacting clauses that are making things difficult. From what I know, the company have raised the suspicious of the tax office before now, and so are being very careful not to break any rules. They have said they are investigating how they can make our notice payments tax free, but we'll have to see how that goes.

One of the reasons I don't want to throw the 0.33r weeks thing in their face at the moment, is in order to not squash any endeavours to find a tax-free route for the notice payment. Once that has been confirmed, I will let them know I want those 0.33r weeks.
 
Back
Top Bottom