Terminating an employment agreement with non existing &quot;statutory notice period&quot; I received an employment contract for a definite term of six months. One of the articles in this agreement states (literally): The Agreement can be terminated prematurely by each of the Parties with due observance of the statutory notice period. According to the Dutch law, there is only a statutory notice period defined for indefinite term contracts. To terminate a definite term contract, the law requires mutual written agreement of both parties (besides cantonal court, urgent dismissal or after consent of the employee insurance agency). The contract itself does not determine any notice period, neither does the law, so what (if anything) does this article effectively mean? Would it automatically fall back to the law applicable to indefinite term contracts?
The Agreement can be terminated prematurely by each of the Parties with due observance of the statutory notice period. equates to: The Agreement can be terminated prematurely by each of the Parties with due observance of [nothing]. which means: The Agreement can be terminated prematurely by each of the Parties
Unilateral termination clauses are legal and very common They even have a name: termination for convenience. However, a contract is not terminated unless and until it is communicated to the other party. Rights and obligations that have accrued up until termination are enforceable.
being overtime-exempt means they're not required to pay me time &amp; 1/2 for overtime, but they're not prohibited from doing so correct? No, the employer is not prohibited from paying you time &amp; 1/2 for overtime. Nor is the employer doing you a favor with respect to the overtime you have been paid already. The employer looks foolish by telling you &quot;I'm doing you a favor by breaching our contract only for future payments but not for past ones&quot;. are they required to keep paying me that as part of the contract or can they just stop whenever they'd like since I'm exempt? Yes, the employer is required to keep paying you under the terms of your contract: 1.5 times the normal rate in case of overtime. Your clarification reflects that the notion of &quot;overtime-exempt&quot; is not contemplated in the contract at all, and the employer just brought it up belatedly. Even if the contract were ambiguous or contradicted itself in this regard, the doctrine of contra proferentem would entitle you to the reasonable interpretation that favors your position (that is because the employer is the party who drafted the contract).
A contract need not be written to be valid and enforceable. However, if there is no written contract, then in a dispute the burden of proving (via a preponderance of evidence) a contractual obligation falls on the party asserting it. In the scenario you describe it sounds like that would be impossible for the processing company.
In one sense, nothing. Absence of such language would not cancel any statutory rights. One purpose of such language is that the consumer cannot later claim that the company tried to hide those statutory rights. In some consumer protection statutes, attempting to decisive a consumer into thinking that s/he does not have the rights granted by statute may itself be unlawful and a ground for damages. Also a court may be less likely to void the contract as contrary to the statue, when the contract says that it should be read as subject to the statute and the consumer's rights under it. Also, once such language becomes common, drafters of corporate contract language often imitate it without thinking what actual purpose it serves.
People are laid off all the time when sales are down, the market is bad, etc: there is no legal "right to a job" except whatever is in your employment contract. There is a legal concept of promissory estoppel which boils down to promises being binding. However, there has to be a clear and definite promise, not for example a statement like "we hope to bring you back after this is over". Normally, the employer can argue that they have the right to fire you regardless of performance, and that would be the end of it. Let's say you have it in writing, and it is clear that they unconditionally promise to hire you back: you would want to (e)stop them from arguing that they have the right to fire you. The underlying idea of promissory estoppel is that such a promise keeps them from making that argument. But: it is not enough that they made the promise, you also had to rely on the promise and act / forbear from acting in some way because of that promise. It could be, for example, taking another job, or moving to another country, or simply looking for another job. The hard part, then, would be getting a clear and definite promise.
Assuming you have a six-month Assured Shorthold Tenancy, you don't have to give any notice at all. As long as you are not in occupation after the end of the tenancy (which means moving out before it ends), that's it. For example, this page from Shelter says: The general rule is that the tenant can leave on the last day of a fixed-term tenancy without giving notice, and this will end the tenancy.[2] If the tenant remains even a day longer than the last day of a fixed-term tenancy, a statutory periodic assured shorthold tenancy will arise, which the tenant can end by serving a valid notice to quit. [2] Right d. Flower v. Darby (1786) 1 T.R. 159; Cobb v Stokes (1807) 8 East 358. This is extremely bad news for landlords, who don't (necessarily) get any notice that they have a void. In general, I would say you ought to give a month's notice (full disclosure, I am a landlord), on the other hand, if they haven't fulfilled their responsibilities perhaps not (but you may have an exaggerated idea of their responsibilities). If you do this, don't expect to get a good reference from your landlord! (Which is going to make it harder to find somewhere else to live). You should also anticipate difficulties in recovering your deposit (you are legally entitled to it back, but that doesn't mean your landlord can't be difficult about it - possibly even requiring you to sue for it). I have just noticed the second part of your question. If you do nothing (in other words, stay in residence), at the end of your Assured Shorthold Tenancy you will switch to a periodic tenancy. The landlord can't force you to switch to another six-month contract, but on the other hand, if you don't, they are perfectly entitled to give you two months notice. If they are smart, they will give you this notice now, so that you can only stay for two months on the periodic tenancy. Note that the letting agent has an incentive to get you and the landlord to sign another contract (they can charge the landlord a fee for it), so they may not be being entirely honest about whether a periodic tenancy is an option. (On the other hand, a poor landlord may be more interested in locking a tenant in for six months.)
This is not an NDA (non-disclosure agreement), it is a non-compete agreement. An NDA would tell you that you cannot disclose anything you did or saw at your old employer's place. A non-compete agreement is what you have here, an agreement that limits your ability to get work. If what you say is correct, then your employer is not exactly the brightest. You stay that you haven't been given a written notice, and your contract says that a "Notice of termination will only be valid if it is given in writing". So you haven't been given valid notice. There is no reason why you would sign the non-compete agreement. If they plan to fire you without notice if you don't agree, they have a problem: Your contract doesn't allow them to do that. And they have apparently not given any written notice yet. So what they can do is as soon as they decide that you are not signing, they can give you one month written notice.