-1

I have been in my current position for around a year now and my contract says I must give three months notice if I plan to leave, do I really have to work this?

Surely this is excessive and a bit discouraging to potential employers? I understand the company needs time to hire and train a replacement for me but can I not get out of this somehow if the period impacts on my career prospects?

This is in the UK by the way, just hoping someone else might have experience with this sort of thing.

Player One
  • 22,679
  • 16
  • 77
  • 89
Threemonthnotice
  • 17
  • 2
  • Will they also pay you for those 3 months? – Solar Mike Jul 31 '19 at 20:42
  • 5
    Is a 3 month notice standard for your industry? If not, why did you agree to it? – sf02 Jul 31 '19 at 20:45
  • 8
    Let me get this clear: your question is if you have to uphold your end of a contract you read and signed willingly? Uh yes, that is what a contract is, your legally binding promise to do what’s in there. – nvoigt Jul 31 '19 at 21:07
  • @sf02 As noted in my answer, three months notice is rapidly becoming the norm for knowledge workers (IT is my field) in the UK. This is a change from a few years ago when one month would have been a lot more common. – Philip Kendall Jul 31 '19 at 21:10
  • Three months is fairly standard in the UK for anything other than entry level professional jobs - normally after the probation period is passed of course. – Neuromancer Jul 31 '19 at 23:42
  • To give a comparison, in Italy notice length depends on length of employment and actual role and can be up to 4 months. This is not seen as excessive and does not prevent changes. – Paolo Aug 01 '19 at 05:30
  • 1
    How does this impact on your career prospects? – Gregory Currie Aug 01 '19 at 05:31
  • 1
    The law states that I may not burgle. Do I really have to forego coming round to your house and stealing all your stuff? – Mawg says reinstate Monica Aug 01 '19 at 06:56
  • It's not for them. It's for you. If they give you notice you have 3 months to look for another job while still get paid. "Potential employees" are aware of this because it's the law. – SZCZERZO KŁY Aug 01 '19 at 07:41
  • I've twice negotiated a shorter notice period (in the UK). One of them ended up being 2 days instead of 4 weeks. It really depends on the situation - if they have work they need you to do before you leave, they might not let you cut it short, but then you could always go off on the sick (if you don't need a reference). It's in neither parties interest to keep you there longer than you want or need to be. – Smock Aug 01 '19 at 11:24
  • OP, there will be provision in your contract to "buy out" the notice period, either explicitly or in employment law (trumps contract terms). This is quite common from an employer's side; it's called "pay in lieu of notice". Less common from an employee's side, as you'd have to stump up e.g. 2 months gross pay, unless your new employer is super keen to get you and pays it (unlikely). Most companies are happy to wait the 3 months. In your case, I'd be far more concerned about the reputational damage of leaving within a year. – Justin Aug 01 '19 at 12:01

2 Answers2

5

do I really have to work this?

Unless you can negotiate a variation in your contract with your employer, yes, you do. It's a contract.

Surely this is excessive

Define "excessive". Putting it bluntly, if you thought it was excessive, why did you sign the contract? For what it's worth, three months notice is rapidly becoming the standard for knowledge workers in the UK.

and a bit discouraging to potential employers?

Yes. However, that's not your current employer's problem in any way, shape or form.

can I not get out of this somehow if the period impacts on my career prospects?

Almost certainly not unilaterally. UK courts will strike down completely unreasonable clauses, but three months notice almost certainly doesn't get anywhere near that bar. Again, if you thought this was going to be a problem for your career prospects, you shouldn't have signed the contract.

Philip Kendall
  • 110,342
  • 65
  • 264
  • 337
  • 3
    If three months "doesn't get anywhere near that bar" for unreasonableness, what does? That's a very long time, how much higher could it possibly go? Hopefully the OP is in a hot job market where he can quit without having something lined up or where he can convince the potential employers to wait 3 months. – teego1967 Jul 31 '19 at 22:30
  • 1
    @teego1967 Probably the most notable clause which does get struck down is an "unreasonable" noncompete which does actually prevent someone earning a living; see e.g. this case. – Philip Kendall Jul 31 '19 at 23:07
  • 2
    @teego1967 its not considered unusual in the UK – Neuromancer Jul 31 '19 at 23:43
  • 1
    Kind of funny what does, vs. does not get considered a human rights violation in various places. Things that are "normal" in the UK would be "grotesquely offensive" in the US, and even more so the reverse. – Chris Stratton Aug 01 '19 at 05:05
  • Can we get something more definitive than "It's a contract". That's kind of circular to me. Sometimes the law comes before contracts. I don't know anything about UK law so I can't say but I'd like to see a reference here. –  Aug 01 '19 at 07:17
  • 2
    @teego1967 At least in my country, where 3 months is the absolute standard, the answer is simple: the employer will hire you and wait the 3 months, because that is the only way to hire someone who is already employed. – Xarn Aug 01 '19 at 07:34
  • 1
    3 month notice periods are not the norm for knowledge workers. Attempting to find a new job with a 3 month lead time is completely unnecessary for all but the most skilled, longest running workers. I'd argue that notice periods that scale to time served are far more common. – James Boyden Aug 01 '19 at 07:35
  • @JamesBoyden They are very common in EU. – SZCZERZO KŁY Aug 01 '19 at 07:49
  • 1
    @SZCZERZOKŁY The question is tagged as UK, where they're not common; at least in my experience. – James Boyden Aug 01 '19 at 09:34
3

but can I not get out of this somehow if the period impacts on my career prospects?

In many cases you can, but you have to be smart and constructive about it. If both parties agree to separate, than it doesn't matter what the contract says.

In this case, your career impact doesn't matter: you need a concession from the company so you need to understand what's best for the company and how they can get it. Let's look at it from there perspective: They have someone who wants out but you can force them to work for you for another three months. That's not an ideal situation: while most people are honorable and will deliver decent work it's unrealistic to expect the same level of productivity you get from someone who is passionate about the job and their career at the place. The likelihood that the exiting candidate will go "above or beyond" is very low.

There is also the risk than an exit candidate will become contagious: while you are still there, you talk to your colleagues and inevitably your departure will come up. If the reasons are real and the new opportunity is attractive, many of them may get second thoughts as well.

So it's typically in their best interest to get you out of there as quickly as possible with the added benefit that they don't have to pay you for the full three months of reduced productivity.

So when the time comes: keep your eyes and ears open: how do departures went down for other people? How quickly do they backfill, do they backfill during the notice period or do they just wait until the existing person is gone. Based on this you can always suggest a solution: For example: "I'm offering to leave as soon as you want me to without pay for the notice period, if you reduce the period to 4 weeks".

Hilmar
  • 120,104
  • 36
  • 233
  • 374
  • "If both parties agree to separate, than it doesn't matter what the contract says." More to the point, if both parties agree to a shorter notice period, that would effectively amend the contract. – user Aug 02 '19 at 08:01