|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: G HardyG Hardy Date: Feb 9, 2008 22:15
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
weeks notice. She doesn't want the employee to work their notice, but also
she doesn't want to pay them for three weeks that they gave, just what is in
the contract.
Is there any reason she would have to pay the offered notice period instead
of the contracted period?
In case it's relevant, the employee has been with her for three years.
Is there any force in the employment contract clauses that prohibit working
for a competitor within 0.75 miles, or setting up a competing business
within six months? I heard that these constitute a "restraint of trade" and
were worthless clauses, but that was from my Dad many years ago - is he
right?
|
| |
|
| | 33 Comments |
|
|
Author: John BriggsJohn Briggs Date: Feb 9, 2008 22:40
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 weeks notice. She doesn't want the employee to work their
> notice, but also she doesn't want to pay them for three weeks that
> they gave, just what is in the contract.
>
> Is there any reason she would have to pay the offered notice period
> instead of the contracted period?
>
> In case it's relevant, the employee has been with her for three years.
>
> Is there any force in the employment contract clauses that prohibit
> working for a competitor within 0.75 miles, or setting up a competing
> business within six months? I heard that these constitute a
> "restraint of trade" and were worthless clauses, but that was from my
> Dad many years ago - is he right? ...
|
| Show full article (1.12Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: tim (not at home)tim (not at home) Date: Feb 9, 2008 22:45
> 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
> weeks notice. She doesn't want the employee to work their notice, but also
> she doesn't want to pay them for three weeks that they gave, just what is
> in the contract.
>
> Is there any reason she would have to pay the offered notice period
> instead of the contracted period?
Yes, the contract of employment.
|
| Show full article (1.69Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Feb 9, 2008 23:10
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
> weeks notice. She doesn't want the employee to work their notice, but also
> she doesn't want to pay them for three weeks that they gave, just what is in
> the contract.
I don't get it.
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?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Roland PerryRoland Perry Date: Feb 9, 2008 23:40
In message newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, at 22:10:04 on
Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Bob Robertson 192.186.0.4> remarked:>> One of her employees handed in their notice this week but offered three
>> weeks notice. She doesn't want the employee to work their notice, but also
>> she doesn't want to pay them for three weeks that they gave, just what is in
>> the contract.
>
>I don't get it.
>
>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?
If the employer has a waiting list for new employees, then maybe they
want the old employee out of the way and a fresh one "on the job" asap?
|
| Show full article (0.99Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Chris RChris R Date: Feb 10, 2008 12:20
"Roland Perry" perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Hm3wupLLrirHFANx@perry.co.uk...> In message newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, at 22:10:04 on Sat,
> 9 Feb 2008, Bob Robertson 192.186.0.4> remarked:>>> One of her employees handed in their notice this week but offered three
>>> weeks notice. She doesn't want the employee to work their notice, but
>>> also
>>> she doesn't want to pay them for three weeks that they gave, just what
>>> is in
>>> the contract.
>>
>>I don't get it.
>>
>>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?
>
> If the employer has a waiting list for new employees, then maybe they want
> the old employee out of the way and a fresh one "on the job" asap?
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Toom TabardToom Tabard Date: Feb 10, 2008 13:10
On 9 Feb, 22:40, Roland Perry perry.co.uk> wrote:> In message newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, at 22:10:04 on
> Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Bob Robertson 192.186.0.4> remarked:
>>>> One of her employees handed in their notice this week but offered three
>>> weeks notice. She doesn't want the employee to work their notice, but also
>>> she doesn't want to pay them for three weeks that they gave, just what is in
>>> the contract.
>
>>I don't get it.
>
>>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?
>
> If the employer has a waiting list for new employees, then maybe they
> want the old employee out of the way and a fresh one "on the job" asap?
>
> I think the employee has messed up here, and can't expect more than a
> week's notice, and for their pay to stop at the end of that week. They ...
|
| Show full article (2.16Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: G HardyG Hardy Date: Feb 10, 2008 13:20
"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
>> weeks notice. She doesn't want the employee to work their notice, but
>> also
>> she doesn't want to pay them for three weeks that they gave, just what is
>> in
>> the contract.
>
> I don't get it.
>
> 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? ...
|
| Show full article (1.10Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Toom TabardToom Tabard Date: Feb 10, 2008 13:35
On 9 Feb, 21:15, "G Hardy" ntlwrold.com> 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
> weeks notice. She doesn't want the employee to work their notice, but also
> she doesn't want to pay them for three weeks that they gave, just what is in
> the contract.
>
> Is there any reason she would have to pay the offered notice period instead
> of the contracted period?
>
> In case it's relevant, the employee has been with her for three years.
>
> Is there any force in the employment contract clauses that prohibit working
> for a competitor within 0.75 miles, or setting up a competing business
> within six months? I heard that these constitute a "restraint of trade" and
> were worthless clauses, but that was from my Dad many years ago - is he
> right? ...
|
| Show full article (1.89Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: peterwnpeterwn Date: Feb 10, 2008 09:40
On Feb 10, 11:40 am, Roland Perry perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
> If the employer has a waiting list for new employees, then maybe they
> want the old employee out of the way and a fresh one "on the job" asap?
>
> I think the employee has messed up here, and can't expect more than a
> week's notice, and for their pay to stop at the end of that week. They
> should have waited another two weeks, if what they wanted was to work
> all three weeks.
> --
This may be OK for 'pure' contracts, but employment contracts have
been regarded in a different light (in some cases by specific
employment legislation) because of the inherent 'imbalanbe' of power
in most employmeny contracts (a firm employing a CEO or senior manager
or specialist would probably have to hold meaningful negotiations with
the prospective employee, but in most cases, the job is offered on a
'take it or leave it' basis. In general employees can be dismissed
only for 'cause' or if genuinely redundant and perhaps other limited
circumstances.
|
| Show full article (1.92Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
