Termination of employment with in 6 month period?

Messugga

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
11,941
@crackersa, does that mean the act can override this, i.e. since its less than 6 months can I approach them and request a 2 week notice instead?

If you walk out do they not hold you in any breach of contract whereby you owe a salary's worth for the notice period mentioned.

Honestly, this company X does have a high turnover and its a pity you do not really know until you sign the contract and work there a while. I have heard a couple of people frustrated too, in whispers

No. The two weeks is a minimum. They could legally make your notice period a year if they want.
You'd be in breach of contract and technically they could come after you for damages due to you leaving earlier than your notice period, if you leave before your notice period.
 

musha

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
310
I was in this situation recently.
I consulted a lawyer who also told me that it's a binding contract and that I would be in breach. Worst case, the employer can file for a civil suit (not CCMA) and claim for damages. However, he needs to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you have caused damages by walking out e.g company lost money or a competitor gained the upper hand by employing you with the previous company "secrets" etc.

All that said, I had a 2 month notice period, previous CEO got fed up and gave me all kinds of *****, I decided to walk out after a month, he withheld leave payout (which I know I can sue for) but whats the point....
 

cguy

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
7,359
At the moment my contract states that I have to submit 8 weeks notice period, which is something I haven't heard of and there are no other clause in this regard, i.e. being employed in the first 6 months and the length of termination. In term of the labour act, notice served should be 2 weeks. I do not think there are a lot of companies willing to wait on a candidate for 8 weeks. How does this apply in my situation and is there anything else I need to consider?

If it makes you feel better, I have a 2 year non-compete. :(
 

GoB

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
1,578
I have 3 months. Thought I had leverage to get around it, but I don't. This will sour the job seeking experience.
 

froot

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
11,347
If it makes you feel better, I have a 2 year non-compete. :(

Which is hard (coming from a labour attorney) to enforce, as a company cannot stop you from having to provide for yourself financially.
 

crackersa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 31, 2011
Messages
29,031
Which is hard (coming from a labour attorney) to enforce, as a company cannot stop you from having to provide for yourself financially.

He’s in the US, labor laws are totally different. I believe they call it willing hire / willing fire
 

cguy

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
7,359
Which is hard (coming from a labour attorney) to enforce, as a company cannot stop you from having to provide for yourself financially.

They get around that by paying me during that time. Only at around 25% of my current income though. It's still enough to live off by most standards, but it still obviously would be a big knock to my regular income.

He’s in the US, labor laws are totally different. I believe they call it willing hire / willing fire

"Work at will" IIRC, but that's just the ability to fire or quit without any notice. I've got that too.
 

crackersa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 31, 2011
Messages
29,031
They get around that by paying me during that time. Only at around 25% of my current income though. It's still enough to live off by most standards, but it still obviously would be a big knock to my regular income.



"Work at will" IIRC, but that's just the ability to fire or quit without any notice. I've got that too.

Ahhhh! That’s it. Only heard it for the first time when I went from contract to perm
 

zippy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
10,074
Thank you for the prompt response, but are companies allowed to impose any amount of notice period they wish, is there no law that protects you against this? My fear is that because of such a breach could mean that I owe the company two months salary in that case, is that so?

its not imposed on you if you agreed to it. The law doesnt protect against naivete. That 6 months may have looked like job security in the beginning, but it cuts both ways :)
 

Gnome

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
6,470
if they are as chaotic as OP says, this is to cover themselves from the inevitable resignations.
not that it will help much, people will just wait till payday and drop everything at HR and walk out, never to return.

Yup... have done that three times in my life from companies that I saw the warning signs at.. Needless to say NONE of those companies exist today.

These companies have this mindset that work is so hard to find and people are so desperate that employees will put up with any old crap from them. Sadly times have changed, but they still keep going at it, like a cANCer voter.

Dude if I find out you walked out early after resigning and getting your pay check (reneged on your agreement) or slacked after resigning that is an instant no hire. I also immediately lose respect for you.

I shows the lack of professionalism and respect. You are being paid for your time. The least you could do is bring your best to the table for the salary you are paid.

If it makes you feel better, I have a 2 year non-compete. :(
In some US states it is unenforceable (eg. California). In South Africa there is case law showing this is unenforceable. Only if the employer can prove you stole their clients or used their resources for the gain of a competitor is there judgements going the other way

He’s in the US, labor laws are totally different. I believe they call it willing hire / willing fire
Hire at will
 
Last edited:

Messugga

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
11,941
In some US states it is unenforceable (eg. California). In South Africa there is case law showing this is unenforceable. Only if the employer can prove you stole their clients or used their resources for the gain of a competitor is there judgements going the other way

The requirement for a non-compete in SA is that it is reasonable with regards to scope. It's allowed to limit you in terms of potential future employers, provided there is a limited timeframe (you cannot say someone is never allowed to work for a competitor, for example) and/or geographic location.
You cannot prevent a software developer from doing software development anywhere on the planet. However, you can prevent a trader from working at competitors, in a trading or advisory capacity for a period of two years, where those competitors are in the same cities you operate in, as a broad example.
 

cguy

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
7,359
In some US states it is unenforceable (eg. California). In South Africa there is case law showing this is unenforceable. Only if the employer can prove you stole their clients or used their resources for the gain of a competitor is there judgements going the other way

In my industry, if I went a non-compete state to break a non-compete, I would likely never be able to find work in the industry again.
 

infection

Active Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
67
One thing you've not mentioned is if your contract has a probation clause on it.

If so, what is the time frame and conditions for re-engaging on the probation clause?

For example, if it has a 3/6 month probation clause there could be a way (again, one would need the contract to know for sure) of getting out if it if they failed to either either specify the re-engaging procedure or not have followed it.
 

Gnome

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
6,470
The requirement for a non-compete in SA is that it is reasonable with regards to scope. It's allowed to limit you in terms of potential future employers, provided there is a limited timeframe (you cannot say someone is never allowed to work for a competitor, for example) and/or geographic location.
You cannot prevent a software developer from doing software development anywhere on the planet. However, you can prevent a trader from working at competitors, in a trading or advisory capacity for a period of two years, where those competitors are in the same cities you operate in, as a broad example.
Yeah I have a very serious non-compete with a huge multinational US company.
Because of that I actually looked at some judgements handed down (Eg. the actual transcripts are available online).

The cases I read where the non-compete aimed at preventing someone from working all failed. The only successful cases I saw was when the employee took clients with them, worked on the new company while working at the old company or stole information from the company to benefit the other company.

The argument is essentially that even if you have highly specialized knowledge, it is the company's prerogative to incentivize the employee to stay on in that capacity. IE> it is a free market.

The only time you can enforce a non-compete is if you can show the equivalent of "theft" (and the term is not very broad, it has to be real theft of work not just redoing something similarly).
To prove this you also open yourself up to discovery.

In my industry, if I went a non-compete state to break a non-compete, I would likely never be able to find work in the industry again.
Closed knit community?

Let's pretend I've worked for Google and saw some of my fellow employees leave for some of the competitors. The constant shift of employees backward and forward was real man.

It was just seen as part of the landscape.
 

cguy

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
7,359
Closed knit community?

Let's pretend I've worked for Google and saw some of my fellow employees leave for some of the competitors. The constant shift of employees backward and forward was real man.

It was just seen as part of the landscape.

I'm in finance, and I'm quite well known. Tech is very different because of the large California presence and the state policies around non-competes. Also the reason that tech can flourish in such an fluid environment, is that very few companies actually compete with each other directly, which is definitely not the case for finance. Ever wonder why there is no financial hub in California? ;)
 
Top