Your new employer doesn't want you now.

[Gerry557]

Just been asked for some advice but can't say I'm in the know on this occasion.

Someone has given notice at current employment and signed a new contract with another company.

With one week until starting the new job and currently working off the last of their 3 months notice they have been informed that they are no longer needed.

I think they were recruited via an agency if that makes any difference. Apparently the new employer has merged or been taken over, I'm not sure.

I'm not sure the details of the new contract with regards to notice periods. There was mention of a weeks notice and or after 3 months probation.

The only advice I could offer was to take to Citizens Advice and consentrate on finding another new position and then try and sort out any possibilities with the current new employer.

Does anyone have anything else to offer or any experiences. I have never been sacked from a job before I've started or sacked for that matter.

[BullDog]

I have had a couple of jobs pulled on a Friday before a Monday morning start. It happens. My take at the moment is that it's a really bad time to do anything except sit tight and keep a low profile. It really sucks when this happens but the best advice would be to double down efforts in finding another offer. Don't even think of trying to keep the prsent job. That company now holds all the aces and you're going to be the first out of the door when it suits them. IMO.

[the0ni0nking]

We have previously pulled an employment offer from someone who had received the contract offer and signed/returned it etc.

We paid them 3 months notice in accordance with the notice per their contract (only board director level had 6 month or 12 month notice periods) - this was for a perm employee who would have been reporting into a C-suite executive.

I can't remember whether we also paid out on any share options that had (potentially) been awarded - I seem to think we didn't but as to how we managed that I'm not sure.

The one thing I do know is that the C-suite executive also left the business shortly after this incident!

[Lanark]

The key question to ask is did they have and accept an unconditional job offer?

If they accepted an offer with conditions, were any of those conditions broken?

An offer withdrawn for spurious reasons counts as a dismissal. This means the organisation needs to pay what they would have paid during the notice period.
It also potentially opens the door for claiming an unfair dismissal, though you will be very limited in what could be claimed from such a short contract.

He should absolutely contact his current employer stating a request to withdraw the resignation, they may treat him like a 'marked man' with his eye on the door or they might promote him before he finds another job, it can go either way.

[Lootman]

We have previously pulled an employment offer from someone who had received the contract offer and signed/returned it etc.

We paid them 3 months notice in accordance with the notice per their contract (only board director level had 6 month or 12 month notice periods) - this was for a perm employee who would have been reporting into a C-suite executive.

Yes, I once had an accepted job offer rescinded, and I got 3 months pay. It was in the form of a cheque and I was told that, as an ex gratia payment, it was not taxable.

Apparently the manager who had hired me was fired.

[Gerry557]

Thanks for your replies. I did mention that they "might" get paid for the notice that's when the waters were muddied by the weeks notice comment. So might be a weeks pay. Hopefully the contract is a bit clearer.

I'm not sure if it would be tax free if it's paid employment. Redundancy might be another matter but I don't think its the case here. I think you needed to be in post 2 years anyway to qualify.

I don't know if it was unconditional or conditional. I will mention it and ask then to check.

Staying at the same place is a hard no apparently. They did promote but then refused to adjust the pay to go with the post. I think there was a bit more too but the long and short is they won't stay and we're eventually offered more after putting in the notice but the decision has been made.

[BullDog]

Thanks for your replies. I did mention that they "might" get paid for the notice that's when the waters were muddied by the weeks notice comment. So might be a weeks pay. Hopefully the contract is a bit clearer.

I'm not sure if it would be tax free if it's paid employment. Redundancy might be another matter but I don't think its the case here. I think you needed to be in post 2 years anyway to qualify.

I don't know if it was unconditional or conditional. I will mention it and ask then to check.

Staying at the same place is a hard no apparently. They did promote but then refused to adjust the pay to go with the post. I think there was a bit more too but the long and short is they won't stay and we're eventually offered more after putting in the notice but the decision has been made.

Very wise to not take a counter offer. It usually ends up badly as the employer knows the employee is looking for something else. The employer then waits for the most convenient time to encourage the employee out of the door. I always rejected counter offers and never regretted it. Hope the person lands a new job quickly.

[Lanark]

Very wise to not take a counter offer.

That is true when you have a job to go to, but thats no longer the case here.

There is a certain loss of face crawling back in this situation, but that's still better than intentionally making yourself unemployed.
Imagine the future interview questions: "So why didnt you stay at the old job? Umm I didn't think they'd want me back"

[Tedx]

I guess it also depends on how you left your old job. If they were hanging on to your trouser leg weeping and wailing as you struggled out the door, then fine.

If it was 'Stuff your effin' job up your effin' [expletive deleted]' Then maybe not so good

[Gerry557]

I assume that they would say that they accepted a new position which then had issues. The merger and or rightsizing etc. No need to lie.

I believe there were discussions over the new post/promotion. Initially it was taken on to aid the company. The additional responsibility and management didn't warrant any extra pay apparently. The employee wanted to return to the previous post on original money. This didn't work because it was still expected to do the additional work. There was also something about not having the budget. Then there was discussions about a delayed adjustment in pay to allow time to find the budget but that was knocked back. A deadline was set to resolve the issues and then notice would be submitted.

Possibly they thought it was an empty threat but notice was duly given. After that a counter offer was made for even more money than the post was initially paid previously and meet the conditions etc. Unfortunately the employee had found this new job and couldn't understand how they could find more money after the deadline but couldn't do any of the alternative suggestions.

It was a hard deadline.

I suppose if another week had gone by the old job would already be gone as an optition anyway.

Maybe firms undervalue current staff but I'm also sure some employees use it as a tatic to get more money. I think in this case it's more about the hassle of job hunting again and finding a job you like rather than just another job.

I shall ask for an update.

[gryffron]

Hi Gerry,
Contract of employment applies from the verbal acceptance of the job, even before it is signed. So your friend is due whatever the contract says. If they are given a week’s notice a week before their start date, then it isn’t necessary for the company to pay them anything. This works both ways of course. An employee who has received a better offer elsewhere can also resign a job before they start.

If they’re only on a week’s contractual notice anyway, then whether the offer was conditional or not is irrelevant. That might have been relevant if the contractual notice period was longer than the notice given, but since that is not the case, the employer doesn’t need this get out.
Statutory notice period is also 1 week for first year. So no different to the contract.
No possibility of unfair dismissal claim in first 2 years unless for illegal discrimination.
The people here who mentioned being paid for 3 months were probably on 3 months notice contracts.

Look on the bright side. Your friend was selected for one job so it shouldn’t be hard to find another. With the added bonus to the new employer that they are available to start immediately. Onwards and upwards! Don’t look back.

Gryff

[Lootman]

The people here who mentioned being paid for 3 months were probably on 3 months notice contracts.

Not in my case. The CEO met with me personally to inform me that I would not be starting, which I thought was a classy move given that he did not know how I would react. He reached into his desk drawer, pulled out a chequebook, wrote a cheque for 3 months salary (gross), handed it to me and asked my reaction.

My reply was: "Under the circumstances, that seems reasonable". It was. And at that point more money than I had ever had in my life.

He then said it was an ex gratia payment, which told me it was not statutory. He just didn't want any bad PR to come out of it, is my guess.

[Gerry557]

Thanks gryffon. That sounds like the situation and maybe explained the weeks notice comment better than I initially took it. Maybe I should suggest that's all they might get not 3 months.

I would assume costs would be one of the metrics behind any company decisions. So therefore unlikely that they would do the gentlemanly thing and pay "more" as in Lootmans example.

Bigger companies can hide behind corporate speak and be less face to face where as a smaller company means to talk to the man direct.

I don't know if there is a way to do some due diligence on a employer before accepting a job these days but might suggest a greater emphasis next time round. Might be a learning curve for the individual.

[dionaeamuscipula]

Contract of employment applies from the verbal acceptance of the job, even before it is signed. So your friend is due whatever the contract says.

Many job offers are made "subject to contract" and it is normal for contracts to be valid from the date of signature by both sides. As long as there is a properly executed contract then the difference is moot.

If they are given a week’s notice a week before their start date, then it isn’t necessary for the company to pay them anything. This works both ways of course. An employee who has received a better offer elsewhere can also resign a job before they start.

Every employment contract I have written or signed commences on the start date, and that is the date from which any notice is due. The amount of notice due is whatever is in the contract (presuming that it is at least equal to statutory provisions), and this is frequently limited during probationary periods. The unfortunate resigner must check their contract carefully to make sure any payment from the company in lieu of notice covers everything that they are due from day 1, so it may or may not include compensation for pension, health care, car, holidays, etc. Holidays probably accrue from day 1 and there might be a rounding up provision which would gain an extra day, if the notice in probation is only a week. They should also check the probationary period clause carefully, to make sure the new company is not breaking it (although every probationary period clause I have seen allows either side to terminate for any reason or none). Payments in lieu of notice, which is what this would be, are taxable as normal these days because they are contractual, not ex-gratia. The new employer should also give the unfortunate resigner a P45.

Of course the new employer might want to pay a larger amount to make the whole thing go away.

DM (not an HR professional)

[didds]

Hi Gerry,
Contract of employment applies from the verbal acceptance of the job, even before it is signed.

Gryff

not disagreeing but I guess if the job offer is rescinded before the paper contract is seen that paper contract could then say anythiunbg to best fit that "new company's" ends... like a 3 month notice suddenly becoming one week. maybe IF that had been discussed verbally that may not work but as ever its a case of a verbal contract is worth the paper its written on etc.

Unless of course it is now common practise to record interviews? (for all i know it is!)

[GoSeigen]

Hi Gerry,
Contract of employment applies from the verbal acceptance of the job, even before it is signed.

Gryff

not disagreeing but I guess if the job offer is rescinded before the paper contract is seen that paper contract could then say anythiunbg to best fit that "new company's" ends... like a 3 month notice suddenly becoming one week. maybe IF that had been discussed verbally that may not work but as ever its a case of a verbal contract is worth the paper its written on etc.

Unless of course it is now common practise to record interviews? (for all i know it is!)

This is absolutely NOT the case. Horrified that people still think/behave this way. The verbal contract is what stands, the written contract is a recording of what was agreed and filling in of details NOT a revision to suit the drafter. If the company tried that crap they would get the book thrown at them in court.

If they are given a week’s notice a week before their start date, then it isn’t necessary for the company to pay them anything.

Also, I can't imagine it's right that notice given before the start date would not need to be paid. That's a very strange interpretation of the situation. The employee has agreed to work and be paid for the work. Now the employer no longer needs her she either works the notice period, gets paid and then leaves or she is paid in lieu of the notice. ISTM if it were the employee giving notice they could theoretically be required to work their notice, but in practice it must be vanishingly rare for this to happen.


However, I too have no expertise in this area so could I suppose be wrong in both the above points. But this is what my common sense and experience tells me.


GS

[didds]

This is absolutely NOT the case. Horrified that people still think/behave this way. The verbal contract is what stands, the written contract is a recording of what was agreed and filling in of details NOT a revision to suit the drafter. If the company tried that crap they would get the book thrown at them in court.
GS

I'd hoppe so.

But.

how do you prove it ?

thats the bottom line.

[gryffron]

I'd hoppe so.
But.
how do you prove it ?

Same problem applies to ANY verbal contract. But a verbal contract is still binding in law. The law is very clear on that point.

Gryff

[Lanark]

Something else worth doing is leaving them a poor review on glassdoor, if only to warn others about how the company treats its staff.

[Lootman]

Something else worth doing is leaving them a poor review on glassdoor, if only to warn others about how the company treats its staff.

In accepting compensation you may give up your right to complain or litigate later, or even to speak about the matter at all. Certainly if you get more money than the bare minimum then that cash could be considered to be "hush money". That is how I considered it when it happened to me and, to this day, I have never publicly identified that employer (and it is a household name in London).