Boss calling solicitor over contract

davo10

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

And you have no interest in why? No concern that the reason the other employer has for not employing someone actually did employ for 15 years is petty?

No way to run a business, mate.

In any case I don’t see why we’ve moved onto references since the op has a job. Her next job will reference this one.

The reason is that listed jobs invite a call to previous employers.

Mate, when you have your own business, you will try to avoid employing troublesome employees. Just because a business closes, others in the industry can contact managers with a bit of internet searching.

I am not saying the ops wife falls into that category, but there is a lot to be said for leaving on good terms. Employers don't know applicants personally, we just try to limit the risks. A good response to a phone call means a lot.

road_high

Glass fused light wrote: »

Very likely. I know someone, took a year to get rid of the employee, as in they gave the employee a choice to leave with a you worked here x to y ref only or be sacked. 3 years later the manager gets a call for a personal character reference from a potential employer at the behest of the ex-employee.

Naivety on the side of that employee. Wouldn't dream of putting down an employer I had a poor relationship with. I don't think most people would be that stupid but there's always exceptions I guess.

KERSPLAT!

You've gone from your OH giving one weeks notice, then to two weeks and the last I read was three weeks. Maybe if she offered the month which is stated in her contract things would have been easier. Or if she offered 2-3 weeks to begin with. I understand employer loyalty is mostly non existent but no matter the issues in my place of work I'd be trying not to completely feck them over. One week is pretty bad. You would hardly have time to advertise a position in that time never mind go through CVs and interviews.

davo10

road_high wrote: »

Naivety on the side of that employee. Wouldn't dream of putting down an employer I had a poor relationship with. I don't think most people would be that stupid but there's always exceptions I guess.

If you have worked in a job for 15 years, how do you avoid the new employer from asking for a contact?

Franz Von Peppercorn

davo10 wrote: »

If you have worked in a job for 15 years, how do you avoid the new employer from asking for a contact?

She can just give the last job, or someone else at the company. I mean this employer is out of business soon. May well not be contactable.

davo10

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

She can just give the last job, or someone else at the company. I mean this employer is out of business soon. May well not be contactable.

Last job but one, 15+ years ago, seriously? Everyone is contactable, Google, LinkedIn etc

Glass fused light

road_high wrote: »

And the employee owes her what exactly?

Legally the one months notice per the employment contract.

road_high wrote: »

Threatening a solicitor on staff is beyond ridiculous and is all the confirmation the OP needs in my opinion that it's time to move on.

If you had an employment contract which said you get a bonus of € 1,000,000 on 31/12/2017.
The only condition is that you could not hand your notice in before 30/11/2017.
Your still employed today and have not handed in your notice.
Your boss has not paid you.
Is it beyond ridiculous for you to threaten inform your employer that you will be on to your solicitor if they don't pay up?

road_high wrote: »

Blaming the collapse of your business on one employee is even more absurd.

Keyman insurance

break even point is total sales = total costs
employee numbers = 4 all paid the same
total sales = Each employee generates salary + 1/4 of other costs
total costs = salary*4 + other costs

one employee leaves, what happens the business

road_high wrote: »

Only thing that I would wonder about is staying to reap some redundancy once this sinking ship folds.

Always an option

road_high

How may people have been sued for leaving an employment contract early? Absolutely pointless to try pursue someone on this basis, let alone the legal costs involved. The fact that the "manager" has resorted to such idle threats shows how desperate she must be.

Yes, if were me and out of courtesy I'd probably work the min notice period but given what I've heard about this workplace I can totally understand why the OP's partner is out the door asap.

Franz Von Peppercorn

davo10 wrote: »

Last job but one, 15+ years ago, seriously? Everyone is contactable, Google, LinkedIn etc

Nobody cares. As an small time employer you want to frighten the peons. But nobody cares.

Small time business owners aren’t the only people who hire. In corporate environments I have hired people based on skill sets and some soft skills as deduced by HR. References were a formality. If somebody ever got a bad reference from one employer and has a reasonable explanation it just wouldn’t matter. The last reference is the most important one.

The op is in no danger whatsoever.

Not that she shouldn’t see put her notice but it doesn’t matter.

evolving_doors

By the time legal proceedings kick-in the business would be toast, no?
Also, who'd pay the solicitors costs when there's no business?
Who would get compensation if there's no company to give compensation to?

I get the sense from the OP that a reference doesn't really matter as they seem to have a job lined up (and are willing to forego redundancy money!!). Maybe she's gotten a job with a relative or family friend. Anyhow, the reference debate seems not to concern the OP, so tis probably moot.

davo10

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Nobody cares. As an small time employer you want to frighten the peons. But nobody cares.

Small time business owners aren’t the only people who hire. In corporate environments I have hired people based on skill sets and some soft skills as deduced by HR. References were a formality. If somebody ever got a bad reference from one employer and has a reasonable explanation it just wouldn’t matter. The last reference is the most important one.

The op is in no danger whatsoever.

Not that she shouldn’t see put her notice but it doesn’t matter.

What a stupid post.

Of course employers care. Most jobs have multiple applications, employers require references, if you don't have one or the phone call is negative, another applicant who has a good one is more appealing, it doesn't matter if you are a small employer or a MN.

"Small employers" are most employers.

my3cents

davo10 wrote: »

What a stupid post.

Of course employers care. Most jobs have multiple applications, employers require references, if you don't have one or the phone call is negative, another applicant who has a good one is more appealing, it doesn't matter if you are a small employer or a MN.

"Small employers" are most employers.

Nah, once employers have made up their minds who they want to employ most are like a lot of us here they are deaf to any arguments to the contrary.

davo10

my3cents wrote: »

Nah, once employers have made up their minds who they want to employ most are like a lot of us here they are deaf to any arguments to the contrary.

You advertise a job, you decide on minimum requirements, you get 20 suitable applicants, after interview you narrow it down to 5 and make a few calls, 3 have positive feedback, 2 don't, who do you consider?

my3cents

davo10 wrote: »

You advertise a job, you decide on minimum requirements, you get 20 suitable applicants, after interview you narrow it down to 5 and make a few calls, 3 have positive feedback, 2 don't, who do you consider?

I've never had any references checked until after I'd been offered a job.

You are assuming that employers are as perfect as own good self.

amdublin

davo10 wrote: »

You advertise a job, you decide on minimum requirements, you get 20 suitable applicants, after interview you narrow it down to 5 and make a few calls, 3 have positive feedback, 2 don't, who do you consider?

Interview 20???

Who has the time for that.

Any hoo you pick your preferred applicant..check their references and if all good you proceed.

wonski

As I said most if not all would call the referee at the final stage. It's not like one man can stop the other to get the job because his ex boss said so.

Glass fused light

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Nobody cares. As an small time employer you want to frighten the peons. But nobody cares.

Small time business owners aren’t the only people who hire. In corporate environments I have hired people based on skill sets and some soft skills as deduced by HR. References were a formality. If somebody ever got a bad reference from one employer and has a reasonable explanation it just wouldn’t matter. The last reference is the most important one.

Just curious, what is the average cost (ball park will do) to your organisation to recruiting a new employee.
Costing from when the other employee hands in their notice to when they are sitting at a desk fully set up ready to work. (ignoring training costs)
How many departments are involved.

runawaybishop

my3cents wrote: »

Nah, once employers have made up their minds who they want to employ most are like a lot of us here they are deaf to any arguments to the contrary.

In corps the hiring is done by HR after the team manager picks the person, but it is HR who call the referees and HR who will kill the hire on the back of a bad referral no matter what the team manager thinks.

davo10

wonski wrote: »

As I said most if not all would call the referee at the final stage. It's not like one man can stop the other to get the job because his ex boss said so.

Not sure what this means but I'll take a guess, one man/woman can stop the hire based on reference/call.

skallywag

my3cents wrote: »

I've never had any references checked until after I'd been offered a job.

You are assuming that employers are as perfect as own good self.

What is the point in checking a reference after an offer has been made? I find that absurd.

wonski wrote: »

As I said most if not all would call the referee at the final stage. It's not like one man can stop the other to get the job because his ex boss said so.

Yes, the reference call would be one of the last steps taken before making a formal offer. If the outcome of the call is negative then there will not be an offer, and I will consider a different candidate.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Glass fused light wrote: »

Just curious, what is the average cost (ball park will do) to your organisation to recruiting a new employee.
Costing from when the other employee hands in their notice to when they are sitting at a desk fully set up ready to work. (ignoring training costs)
How many departments are involved.

No idea. It’s all pretty much sunk costs anyway as the recruiter and HR get paid regardless.

I know HR pretty well and I doubt they would just stop a hire based on a “no” without explanation from one previous employer.

knipex

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

That's a very naive view. I can tell you that the there are countless people who have lost jobs and gotten very little of anything after years of service. There's no such thing as employer loyalty

Ever heard of a place called clerys?

Legally there is nothing the employer can do to stop her leaving.

However leaving a job after 15 years with bad blood and hence a bad reference isn't exactly good for your future job prospects.

If I was checking references and an onld employer said "I had no issues until tehy handed in 1 weeks notice after 15 years service" It woudl make me think twice.

I left an employer once after 5 years in a situation where there was bad blood. I still think I was badly treated but if I had to do it all over again I would have just walked away to keep things sweet. that 5 year gap with at best a neutral to bland reference still causes me problems when looking for work..

Glass fused light

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Glass fused light wrote: »

Just curious, what is the average cost (ball park will do) to your organisation to recruiting a new employee.
Costing from when the other employee hands in their notice to when they are sitting at a desk fully set up ready to work. (ignoring training costs)
How many departments are involved.

No idea. It’s all pretty much sunk costs anyway as the recruiter and HR get paid regardless.

I know HR pretty well

Ask HR what's is the attrition in the company (total leaver (death, retirement, new jobs, sackes, no-shows ) and what's the rate for your industry as a whole, and if they are above or below the metric.

Ask HR what the % overall employee costs is allocated to recruiters fees in a given budget cycle.

Ask if their department headcount is a fixed ratio to total staffing or is the volume of work taken into account.

Ask how the current departmental head count would be justified if the company has a cost saving drive by reducing company head count as a whole.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

and I doubt they would just stop a hire based on a “no” without explanation from one previous employer.

No employer with any cop-on is going to elaborate on the no, any further questions about why would be met with a no comment reply.

If the future employee has been upfront about the explaination for the no in the interview well and good, they have keyed HR with an expectation of a neutral or even a negative reply. Its when they have expanded on how great they were at the job and how happy their manager was with them, that the doubt creeps in.

NeonSquares

I would love to answer some specific questions that were posted on here but I can't give too much detail for fear of 'identifiable information' about the business.

It's an SME with no HR dept.

My partner is willing to forgo redundancy because the business owner hid the fact the business was winding down and a colleague of my partner found out through a third party and the whole thing is not being handled well at all.

When confronted the business owner tried to blow it off as idle gossip and felt ambushed but confessed a few days later at a staff meeting.

I joke not that this employer personally expected staff to keep the status quo until the last day of business and not be actively look for future employment.

My partner is lucky as the field the business is in she has a good reputation and when she did look for future employment she was offered a position(in writing) as she has delt with them in a professsional capacity and they know her.

The reference issue is at the minute not a concern as new employment is secured and she plans on being there a while.

We accept the length of notice given can be seen as disrespectful.

At the end of the day my partner is securing her future, she want to start her new opportunity asap, she gave many years of service only to be threatened with solicitors and verbally torn down in front of other employees.

Yes it's a stressfully time for the business owner but things can be handled in a civil manner and not the way this was.

I started this thread after my partner called in tears over the initial solicitor threat and verbal abuse given so we'll see what Monday brings and if things have calmed down and a compromise cannot be worked out.

evolving_doors

Well that clears up reference-gate :pac:

Anyway the question remains.

How would legal proceedings play out when a business is going under (or after!).

dennyk

Regardless of the whole references thing and the company winding up, why should an employee not be expected to abide by the terms of their contract (absent extenuating circumstances, of course)? I'm sure the OP's partner would expect her employer to follow those terms and would probably be rightly upset if they, say, made her redundant with zero notice and no pay in lieu. If her contract says four weeks (or one month or whatever), that's the amount of notice she should be giving, and she really shouldn't be shocked that her boss would be upset about her violating her contract by giving less.

Her new company will surely understand that she is obliged to give a reasonable amount of notice at her current job, and one month is pretty standard; after all, they surely have some notice period specified in their own contracts and no doubt expect their own employees to follow it. If they are the sort of employer to go all "rules for thee, not for me" about such things, they're likely going to be a poor company to work for in any case.

Her best move to smooth things over is probably going to be to advise her new company that she does have a one month notice period with her old employer and see if they can push back her starting date, and then say to her current boss "Sorry, boss, I had forgotten that the terms of my contract required a month's notice, so I'll be leaving the company on X date instead..." If her boss continues to act irrationally about it or bullies her about leaving in any case, though, it may be time to consider other options for an earlier departure.

evolving_doors

dennyk wrote: »

Regardless of the whole references thing and the company winding up, why should an employee not be expected to abide by the terms of their contract absent extenuating circumstances, of course)? I'm sure the OP's partner would expect her employer to follow those terms and would probably be rightly upset if they, say, made her redundant with zero notice and no pay in lieu. If her contract says four weeks (or one month or whatever), that's the amount of notice she should be giving, and she really shouldn't be shocked that her boss would be upset about her violating her contract by giving less.

Her new company will surely understand that she is obliged to give a reasonable amount of notice at her current job, and one month is pretty standard; after all, they surely have some notice period specified in their own contracts and no doubt expect their own employees to follow it. If they are the sort of employer to go all "rules for thee, not for me" about such things, they're likely going to be a poor company to work for in any case.

Her best move to smooth things over is probably going to be to advise her new company that she does have a one month notice period with her old employer and see if they can push back her starting date, and then say to her current boss "Sorry, boss, I had forgotten that the terms of my contract required a month's notice, so I'll be leaving the company on X date instead..." If her boss continues to act irrationally about it or bullies her about leaving in any case, though, it may be time to consider other options for an earlier departure.

Because They're invoking your 'extenuating circumstances' clause.
The company is going to the wall and was going to do a Cleary's on it.

my3cents

dennyk wrote: »

Regardless of the whole references thing and the company winding up, why should an employee not be expected to abide by the terms of their contract (absent extenuating circumstances, of course)? I'm sure the OP's partner would expect her employer to follow those terms and would probably be rightly upset if they, say, made her redundant with zero notice and no pay in lieu. If her contract says four weeks (or one month or whatever), that's the amount of notice she should be giving, and she really shouldn't be shocked that her boss would be upset about her violating her contract by giving less.

Her new company will surely understand that she is obliged to give a reasonable amount of notice at her current job, and one month is pretty standard; after all, they surely have some notice period specified in their own contracts and no doubt expect their own employees to follow it. If they are the sort of employer to go all "rules for thee, not for me" about such things, they're likely going to be a poor company to work for in any case.

Her best move to smooth things over is probably going to be to advise her new company that she does have a one month notice period with her old employer and see if they can push back her starting date, and then say to her current boss "Sorry, boss, I had forgotten that the terms of my contract required a month's notice, so I'll be leaving the company on X date instead..." If her boss continues to act irrationally about it or bullies her about leaving in any case, though, it may be time to consider other options for an earlier departure.

Because the employee's contract isn't worth the paper its written on when it comes to ending the contract.

If the worst penalty for not complying with the contract is dismissal then the worst they can do is dismiss you for leaving - how does that work?

Glass fused light

evolving_doors wrote: »

Well that clears up reference-gate :pac:

Anyway the question remains.

How would legal proceedings play out when a business is going under (or after!).

Ignoring the likely outcome win \ loose and the economics of the employee having the funds to pay:


A company has to hire a solicitor to act on its behalf in court. So there has to be someone in the company with the authority to instruct the solicitor, and funding to pay for the legal action.The funding would be unsecured debt.

Before the liqudation the people with the authority to instruct would be the Directors, after the liqudation commences it's the Liquidator (the directors are basically sacked).

In a liquidation all debts are listed in strict order and it determines for each creditor who has to be paid before them and if they are entitled to full or partial payment before the next guy on the list gets paid.
payments are made  (roughly) in this order: 
1) Liquidators  fees
1) State debt (taxes etc.)
1) Some Employee costs (wages to date of liqudation etc)
2) Secured debt 
3) Unsecured debt
4) Ordinary shareholders.

Within the ranking full  payment is made to class 1 debt in order before moving to class2, here payment is dependent on how well the contract was written. Class2 could be contractual entitled to be paid in full before others in the class or only get a percentage.  Class3 get a percentage (could be 100%). Class 4 get all the money left after paying the others.
(^^open to correction on this)

Below are the types of liquidation 

https://www.cro.ie/Termination-Restoration/Company

Liquidation

Liquidation involves the dissolution of a company, where its affairs are tidied up and assets realised and distributed to the owed parties. A company can be wound up by:

resolution of the members following the making of a declaration of solvency (Members Voluntary Winding Up);
resolution of the members ratified by the creditors (Creditors Voluntary Winding Up)
an order of the Court. (Court Winding Up - Involuntary Winding Up).

The court case is not an asset.

With a creditor wind up its insolvent (no cash to fully pay the debt) otherwise it would be a members wind up.  If the directors commenced and prefunded the case they risk becoming personally liable as they diverted money which should have been used to pay debts. Once appointed by the creditors the liquidator is obliged to focus on settling the debts. The Liquidator is answerable to the creditors.  They cant\wont bet on the court case resulting in the company's favour so won't commence proceedings. 

In a court appointed wind up (it could be solvent but likely an unsecured/ secured creditor jumping the que) the director's would loose control without adequate notice and the Liquidator is working for the courts and won't bet.

In the members (shareholders) wind up the Directors confirm that all debt can be funded\paid within 12 months this funding would have to include the cost of the legal action if they are committed to court action. On this basis the directors could commence an action and even pre-fund it or as they have the cash to pay the legal team just have a contractual agreement(<debt to be paid).  Its the members who drive the wind up so the Directors would get pre-approval for the liquidation and the court case. The members also get to pick the Liquidator and can have an agreement that the case is progressed. Once the Liquidator is appointed and the Liquidator is confident the debts can be paid, and can cover the cost of loosing they could stick to the agreement as they are spending the members money at their request.  
However in real life the directors need to be confident on paying the debt within 12 months (the court date is unlikley to be with in this timeframe).  So company will normally have ceased trading, sold off most if not all of the assets, paid or organised to pay off the debts and allocated funding against the debts, made/agreed staff redundancy payments and paid spare cash out as a dividend.  The company will have to fund the liquidator, and the fee would reflect the time involved and complexity of closing the company. The Directors doing the work would normally be cheaper and easier to control than the Liquidator so the court action would be pre-wind up.
And if you have got this far without falling asleep, good night!! I am happy to read where I am wrong in the morning

STB.

Just have to laugh at the ISME type responses here expecting the person (who is on notice of employment ending) of giving more exit time out of courtesy. HA!

These very companies would do their damndest to get employees shot of asap or not pay them where they can, come hail rain or severe snow!

Good Luck to the OPs wife shes secured employment for the future when that option might not be there in a few months when the company closes.

The would be "employers" on thread are hilarious. If someone worked for a company for 15 years, a reference is the last thing you'd be looking for. The time they have worked speaks volumes.