I have been employed by my present employer for 2 years. i initially gave 1 months notice but was persuaded by my manager to give 2 months so they could train a new employee.

The company has since employed 4 new staff but none of them are to be trained in my job. In addition, it was implied I was not up to taking on a better job so I was stuck with it until my notice expired.

Because my contract does not state a set notice period can I just give 2 weeks notice rather than fulfill the entire 2 month notice period?

  • 2
    What country are you based in Sue? – Mike Apr 3 '14 at 11:18
  • 1
    Sue is not registered so she will not be able to update the question or answer any comments or questions. – IDrinkandIKnowThings Apr 3 '14 at 13:50
  • @Sue I cleaned up some wording on this question, feel free to edit if this changes your intent too much. I'm not really sure what you mean by ` it was implied I was not up to taking on a better job so I was stuck with it until my notice expired.` so I have not changed it at all. – enderland Apr 3 '14 at 18:54

The answer to this is very dependent on your location.

In the US you are an at will employee and can quit employment when ever you want. Quitting with out at least 2 weeks notice is considered unprofessional and could complicate reference checks in the future. However you should be able to give them 2 weeks notice effective today. Since you already committed to working for 2 months this may not make your employer happy but if during a reference check they say she only gave us 2 weeks notice, your prospective employer is unlikely to have much sympathy for the company.

There are places in other parts of the world where this is not the case. It is my understanding that in India the standard notice period is 3 months, and that there are places in Europe that require 2 months notice though I do not have the exact information on them so if you are not in the US I would look to another answer.

  • Not every state is considered an "at will" state. You might want to make that clear. – Donald Apr 4 '14 at 16:25
  • 1
    @Ramhound - Actually yes it is from the employee standpoint. There is no state that will force an employee to work somewhere they do not want (unless you join the military but that's another discussion) – IDrinkandIKnowThings Apr 4 '14 at 16:32
  • @Ramhound: the "at will" part is about making it easier to terminate people. There is no state in the United States of America in which an employee is forced to continue going to work or prevented from walking out never to return with even zero notice. – NotMe Jul 14 '14 at 20:00
  • @ReallyTiredOfThisGame - Clearly I didn't mean that. I was talking more about Union and Non-Union states. If he was part of a Union he would be held to certain requirements otherwise perhaps pay the difference, likewise as a non-union employee thats harder to enforce upon somebody. BUT my comment was before a major SC ruling about Unions anyways. – Donald Jul 14 '14 at 20:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .