On Feb 11, 1:20 am, "G Hardy" <gareth.har...@ntlwrold.com> wrote: The employee could have just waited 2 weeks and handed their notice in. Only the employer would have less time to find someone. Surely giving three weeks is to the advantage of the employer? Not really, in this case. The employee knows the employer never expects notice to be worked, so by giving three weeks
G Hardy wrote: Not really, in this case. The employee knows the employer never expects notice to be worked, so by giving three weeks notice they have (potentially) forced her to pay three weeks instead of one. Two weeks free holiday pay or two weeks head start (with funding) for her own, competing business. Well, it's her own fault for "never expecting notice to be worked" - which
"Bob Robertson" wrote... On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:15:07 +0000, G Hardy wrote: One of my relatives runs a beauty salon and employs her staff (as opposed to them "renting seats", which is the norm for that industry). The employment contract states one week notice period for both employee and employer. One of her employees handed in their notice this week but offered three
************************************************************** JobCircle.com is a regional job board serving all industries and occupations in the PA, NJ, DE, NY, MD, and DC areas. We offer a regional job board, online learning, and regional job fair events for jobseekers who live in our areas of focus. To Learn More: Job Board: http://www.JobCircle.com?source=ng eLearning
A friend who is looking to change jobs has been presented by the new employer with their standard employment contract which has a number of questionable terms. She asked me to have a look as I've had more experience with this kind of thing. It's a pretty scary document. Is there any legal protection against unfair or unreasonable contract terms in employment contracts ? I looked for suitable
