[Closed] Can a notice period be greater than a salary frequency?

'contractual' - if you've signed for 3 and you leave early they could sue for breach blah blah blah. You can leave early if your health is being affected. I'd be honnest with your current employer and see if you can work something out.
A call to the Citizens Advice Bureau will help.

Basically you would be in a sticky situation trying to leave in less than the sallary frequency (ie less than a month) other than that it's dependant on contract but not unusual- think of it this way it shows you or at least your role is valued and can't just go to seed suddenly.

yes they can but it rarely gets enforced unless you doing something absolutely crucial that no-one else can do. its not in a companies interests to keep someone on if they don't want to do the job and they have another offer.

i've found CAB to utterly useless unless your unemployed and got ages to hang round at the local branch waiting for advice.

That's not right no, you're contractual notice period is exactly what it says in your contract. If it were only ever equivalent to your salary frequency then no one, not even a CEO, could be on anything more than a months notice.

There are circumstances where you might reasonably argue that 3 months was unduly punitive, for example if you were very junior and the length of your notice period was preventing you from finding alternative work, but that would have to be argued by a lawyer on your behalf.

Not if your contract states 3 months, In that case it's perfectly valid. If you leave before the 3 months is up you've breached your contract. Normally the 3 months works in your favour though, big chunk of cash / more notice of redundancy etc. Most employers are fairly sensible though and will come to some sort of compromise though if you discuss it with them. There's no point in having a disgruntled employee hanging around for 3 months causing issues. most of the time you're best off agreeing what needs completing / documenting / handing over before you can leave. that way you've got an incentive to get things done and they get a smooth handover.

Your alternative (which I'm not advocating) are to just leave anyway, there are many firms that will actually take you to court for breach of contract, not worth the time or money or you could go sick. However as you've already said it's always best to part terms professionally, you never know when you may need reference or contacts or even find your previous employer is now a client.

I knew my last employer was a 3 month notice period. So I gave them a month (The salary period) in writing and the letter sat unopened on my managers desk for 2 weeks. During that time I'd agreed a start date with my new (Current) employer. I knew exactly what would happen, but by the time they came to argue the toss with me, I just shrugged. It was too late.
The thing was, they paid us a month in ADVANCE and knew damned well that if they pushed it, I would turn up for a week, pocket a month's pay, and walk out. It used to happen quite regularly.... 😯

IANA(Employment)L but I've never heard of the rule the OP moots - contractual notice period is what it is Shirley?

*calling TJ*

Your contract can say anything - it's a set of terms agreed between you and the employer. 3 months is not uncommon, 6 and even 12 months can be in contracts for more senior posts.

If you do decide to leave giving less notice than you agreed then it's a breach of contract and the employer could potentially sue for losses incurred. In reality, that's unlikely to happen unless you're critical to the business and can't be replaced fairly easily. If that was the case, you could be sued for the bill for a short-term contractor to fill your shoes but most of the time their only losses would be equal to the cost of your salary so negotiating an early exit (and an early end of your salary being paid) will cover that off.

I'd approach it by meeting your line manager and giving them a letter of resignation with an earlier end date, ideally with HR there too. Offer to continue work for a month with full handover, etc.

It depends a lot on the job and industry - some posts can't be easily filled on a months notice and if they might need to enforce gardening leave then having enough notice period in the contract is important.

CAB are less than useless, you should speak to ACAS - they will give you impartial advice on employment matters. IMO if you get paid monthly and your notice period is 3 months, what is there to stop you from leaving after a month, other than the salary for those three months? no court in the land would force you to go to work! they could refuse to give a reference but if you have a job already lined up then that shouldn't be an issue. 3 months, to me, is unenforcable in reality.

Cheers all, as I thought. I've no intention of throwing any dummies out of any prams, I will, as many of you say, probably be able to negotiate a shorter notice period. Especially as I may want them to give me a job again at some point (I'm planning a year or so off to, you know, do stuff).

cynic-al - I believe it originally came from a chap in the RAF who had to give a year's notice, but successfully appealled as he was only paid monthly. However, there is a strong element of someone who heard it from someone who sits next to someone who goes to the pub with someone who's mum heard it from someone who saw it on the news...

There are 2 separate issues. One is leaving (which has been covered here well) the other is starting a new job with a competitor. That's when gardening leave comes in. Your old firm may try to prevent you starting work with somebody else within the 3 months, and they would be within their rights.

Your old firm may try to prevent you starting work with somebody else within the 3 months, and they would be within their rights.

This is becoming increasingly common and I certainly haven't heard a definitive answer from anyone on the subject of 'non-compete' clauses. AFAIK the more general these are, the less enforceable they are. The argument is based on European Human Rights law, which basically says you cannot deny anyone the right to earn a living. If you make a non-compete clause too generic, such that it coud be applied in almost any instance over a time frame that makes it impossible to transition to an new role, then they are more or less unenforceable, regardless of what you signed in your contract, because they contravine the human rights legislation.
Additionally, I'm pretty sure there is a law that protects anyone from signing a contract that is unduly punative to them and can be applied in any contractual situation.

Big John is correct. Part of the reason you might be on a 3 month notice period is to make sure that you cannot take any current information to a new employer. I see it happen at work where people are made to take 3 months gardening leave to make sure any information they may know (current work being bid for, new products etc etc) is out of date before they start with a competitor.

If your future employer wants you most will wait 3 months for you to start - and you may get to ride every day for the summer !!