Hello friends,
One of my HR friends has come across the following situation regarding the notice period.
Background of the Situation
He joined a couple of years ago (2007) in a reputed manufacturing company in a Manager position where the company issued him an appointment letter mentioning that he had to give a 90-day notice period, and he acknowledged the same.
They were practicing 90 days and above for Managers & above, and below Managers - 30 days. However, some Managers in the same company for over a decade do not even have an appointment letter.
Changes in Notice Period Policy
After some time, many Managers expressed discomfort with the 90-day notice period. Subsequently, the company implemented a separation policy in the HR policy manual, stating a 60-day notice period and communicated this change to all employees in 2008.
In the recent past, the company once again changed the notice period for employees who joined in the last year, issuing a notice period of one month until the GM position and 60 days for GMs & above.
Current Dilemma
Last week, he resigned from the company. Now, the company is asking him to serve a 90-day notice period as per his signed appointment letter. However, others in the same cadre who joined in the last year are given a 30-day notice period.
He is in a dilemma because of conflicting communications: 1) as per his appointment letter, 90 days 2) as per the HR policy document - 60 days 3) other employees in the same cadre - 30 days.
He assumed that since current employees in his cadre have a 30-day notice period, he should follow the same. He did not ask his manager to issue a revised notice.
When he shared the above communication, his boss informed him that since the appointment order is a binding agreement and no revised clause of the notice period is issued, he needs to serve a 3-month notice.
Please provide your expert advice/suggestions.
One of my HR friends has come across the following situation regarding the notice period.
Background of the Situation
He joined a couple of years ago (2007) in a reputed manufacturing company in a Manager position where the company issued him an appointment letter mentioning that he had to give a 90-day notice period, and he acknowledged the same.
They were practicing 90 days and above for Managers & above, and below Managers - 30 days. However, some Managers in the same company for over a decade do not even have an appointment letter.
Changes in Notice Period Policy
After some time, many Managers expressed discomfort with the 90-day notice period. Subsequently, the company implemented a separation policy in the HR policy manual, stating a 60-day notice period and communicated this change to all employees in 2008.
In the recent past, the company once again changed the notice period for employees who joined in the last year, issuing a notice period of one month until the GM position and 60 days for GMs & above.
Current Dilemma
Last week, he resigned from the company. Now, the company is asking him to serve a 90-day notice period as per his signed appointment letter. However, others in the same cadre who joined in the last year are given a 30-day notice period.
He is in a dilemma because of conflicting communications: 1) as per his appointment letter, 90 days 2) as per the HR policy document - 60 days 3) other employees in the same cadre - 30 days.
He assumed that since current employees in his cadre have a 30-day notice period, he should follow the same. He did not ask his manager to issue a revised notice.
When he shared the above communication, his boss informed him that since the appointment order is a binding agreement and no revised clause of the notice period is issued, he needs to serve a 3-month notice.
Please provide your expert advice/suggestions.