Employer not paying notice period

[degrey]

I have been made redundant from a company.
I was issued with an original contract where on of the items stated that 3 months notice or pament was to be paid. The contract never got signed due to not being able to get together with the MD for signing.
A further contract was sent out 9 months later with big differences which I said I would not sign as the original contract was more applicable and the original agreement. This contract still contained the 3 months notice.
I have been made redundant and the employer is saying that as I did not sign the contract, they are only paying me one month.
it appears that as the employment went ahead that the terms of the contract actually came into force. Is this correct.
Where do I stand in trying to get my remaining 2 months paid?

[factor-fiction]

What notice was in your original contract.? On what basis did you take the job?

[degrey]

The notice period in both of the contracts issued was 3 months or payment of the 3 months.

[factor-fiction]

A few more questions I'm afraid.

Are you referring to the two contracts you didn't sign?
Have you ever signed a contract?
Was your notice period ever one month?
How long have you worked there?

[degrey]

Neither of the contracts were signed.
There was never any mention of any other notice period apart from that in the contract.
I worked for the company for 13 months

[clio57]

Not sure so best to check with Citizens Advice but I think as you have been working for them there is some implicit agreement.

The fact that they are paying you (presumably the amount stated on the original contract) and you turned up to work and did the job offered in the contract means that both sides "agree" to the contract.

This is just a gut feeling

[factor-fiction]

We probably need buildersmate for this one. I think clio57 is probably correct though.
Was 3 months agreed at the time you started the job or was it only a month until they gave you a written contarct saying 3 months?
You need to ask your employer where the one month figure comes from

[degrey]

The contract was given to me before I started work. There was never any mention of 1 month. I think it is because the company has cash flow issues they are trying to get away wih only paying me 1 month because they say 'I dont have a conract'. Though truth be known, I was pushing to get the contract signed, but the MD kept putting it off. I foolishly trusted that this would be honoured.

[buildersmate]

This strikes me as unusual. What usually happens is the company writes a letter offering terms. Sometimes there is a space on the bottom for the employee to sign and return one copy.
When I've been issuing a letter CHANGING someone's terms, I write a phrase at the bottom 'I have read the above letter and accept the change in my terms of employment. Signed..... '. That covers my company.
I think (but I'm not sure either) that by issuing the letter, that is enough for an implied contract, as Clio suggests.
Is there at least a signature of an (authorised) person from within the company on it somewhere?

[degrey]

The original contract was sent from the MD attached to an email. The second was from the finace director, also attached to an email. I have saved copies of the emails. Over the last 24 hours I have spoken to a number of people with their own businesses, one who deals in company law, and all of them have stated that the contract does not need to be signed for it to be in effect.
Thank you all for your replies. I shall now push harder for the 2 remaining months pay.
Best regards.

[BenDToy]

I agree totally. An employment "contract" does not need to be signed for it to be valid. Unless of course a signed contract exists which clearly supersedes the others, which is obviously not the case. A contract for these purposes could be an employment handbook, a job description or just a list of duties. There is a legal requirement for such a contract to exist and there are certain minumum contents. The main reason a signature is requested is so that the employer can demonstrate that the employee has been issued with the contract.
In the circumstances you describe, you are entitled to 3 months notice.

[Memore]

you state that you worked there for 13 months you are not legally entitled to redundancy until 2 years - so you not covered by that legislation anyway.

It doesnt matter if you dont sign a contract although it is good practice for employers to receive signed contracts and chase them up - the fact that you have worked to a contract becomes an implied term in law unless you have raised dissatisfaction with the new terms before.

Notice periods for redundancy are one week per completed year up to 12 years.