I run a start-up company and have gone through various threads here relating to my problem, but have read contradictory views. I would appreciate your help.
Our company is small, but growing with a dozen managers and about 150 lower level staff. We like to consider ourselves professionally run and fair to our employees, though we do not have the HR resources of bigger companies.
Recently I have had to ask one of my senior managers to leave. I would not like to get into details, but suffice to say the reasons were a combination of poor performance, inability to handle new responsibilities he was given in line with our growth plans and unethical behavior (albeit which cannot be legally proven).
After some counselling and some formal mails on his shortcomings proved ineffective, we had a meeting and we agreed that things were not working out. He was given the chance to resign, to maintain a dignified exit. As he was also looking our for other opportunities, we agreed that he could leave in 2 weeks (we had no problem in relieving him in that time). He resigned accordingly and in the acceptance mail, the company confirmed he could leave 2 weeks.
The contract with the manager states a 90 days notice (or salary in lieu of that). The employee, just before his last day is now insisting that we have to pay him for 3 months and has stated that he now wishes to work for the full notice period. However, his duties have already been handed over and he is not willing to serve as per the timings/days his job requires.
We had intended to pay for the 2 weeks notice + 3 weeks extra (i.e. 2 weeks more + some pending leave) for his settlement, given that it was he who resigned and the time period agreed earlier was 2 weeks.
I would like to know if the company is legally liable to pay the full 3 months notice, as per the contract. I would like to respect what the legal position is.