Do I have to work my 3 months notice?

[Neo1]

Hi
I am a self employed contractor within the pharmaceutical industry. Just before xmas I started a 12 month contract with Pfizer. Terms of my contract stipulate that for the first 3 months a notice period of 4 weeks is required, thereafter a notice period of 3 months is required. I refused to sign the contract due to this clause and kept both my copy and the copy I was meant to sign and return. My question is: If i were to leave tomorrow (after nearly 5 months into the contract) would i still be obliged to work the 3 months notice period?

Thank you.

[Sidewinder]

If one part of the contract was never agreed, then it could be argued that other terms are equally not applicable, such as terms of payment etc so you could find them being awkward. Did you simply not sign the contract, or raise the notice period as a contentious clause? If so, was this in writing and did you ever receive a response? In the absence of this, it could be deemed that by working you implied agreement to the terms and would therefore be bound to comply.

Have you actually discussed it with them and what would be the consequence of not working the three months?

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Originally Posted by Neo1

Hi
I am a self employed contractor within the pharmaceutical industry. Just before xmas I started a 12 month contract with Pfizer. Terms of my contract stipulate that for the first 3 months a notice period of 4 weeks is required, thereafter a notice period of 3 months is required. I refused to sign the contract due to this clause and kept both my copy and the copy I was meant to sign and return. My question is: If i were to leave tomorrow (after nearly 5 months into the contract) would i still be obliged to work the 3 months notice period?

Thank you.

I'd say you have to work the three month notice.

A contract need not be signed so, effectively, they had given you notice of the terms and you continued to work under those terms for five months and therefore accepting them.

I assume these terms were given to you at the outset?

[shywazz]

Employment contracts do not have to be signed to be enforced, the terms and conditions still take affect whether you signed the contract or not. 3 months notice does seem abit much, maybe a chat with them, there might accept less... Did you put your reasons for refusing to sign in writing when you 1st recieved the contract ? Offer them 4 weeks, should you be thinking of leaving, i'm sure there will accept that.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Originally Posted by shywazz

Employment contracts do not have to be signed to be enforced, the terms and conditions still take affect whether you signed the contract or not. 3 months notice does seem abit much, maybe a chat with them, there might accept less... Did you put your reasons for refusing to sign in writing when you 1st recieved the contract ? Offer them 4 weeks, should you be thinking of leaving, i'm sure there will accept that.

It isn't an employment contract. The OP is a sub-contractor who has signed a contract providing a service. There is a difference.

And 3 months is not unusual in these circumstances. If the OP offers 4 weeks notice as you suggest then he is intending to breach the contract.

I'd be careful.

[Neo1]

What ae the consequences of breaching such a contract ie worst case scenario?

[Sidewinder]

Worst case scenario? Probably a breach of contract claim for damages to the value of three months work plus the cost of finding a replacement to carry out your work.

[bed32]

How do you get the "three months work" bit?

Surely the claim is purely for any damages they suffer, so roughly speaking the cost - over and above what they would have paid the OP - of finding someone to do the work for the remaining 3 months. If it is easy to find such resource then the damages would be minimal - on the other hand if they had to go to a much more expensive source for the same skills (as it is short notice) then it could be considerable.

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by bed32

How do you get the "three months work" bit?

Surely the claim is purely for any damages they suffer, so roughly speaking the cost - over and above what they would have paid the OP - of finding someone to do the work for the remaining 3 months. If it is easy to find such resource then the damages would be minimal - on the other hand if they had to go to a much more expensive source for the same skills (as it is short notice) then it could be considerable.

The OP asked for the worst case scenario. The nature of any damages claimed would naturally depend on the nature of the work and the ease of replacing him and covering the task that he performs. As a contractor in the pharmaceutical industry it is possible (although granted, not a given) that the work could be specialised, and as they have a need to contract out this task, that a replacement is not available in-house, or readily from the labour market. Breaking the contract could, in certain circumstances result in some fairly hefty costs to the company, and could be pursued as damages based on any profits or benefits which the company would have earned had the OP worked the notice period. In the absence of a replacement, and if no notice was worked, they could sue for the value that three months more work would have brought.

In practice, not many employers would sue - there are significant costs in doing so, and the difficulty of proving the value of the employee and the actual loss caused to the business. The likelihood of litigation would depend on the effect of the OP's leaving on productivity, fulfilment of orders or other factors.