Hello,
I have been searching for IT job in Switzerland, finally got a one. I have signed the contract (offer letter) with the employer. There seem to be good work with this company.

Now, I am about to get another offer.
This will hopefully give more package than the first one. But in terms of work this is not so good.

This has put me in dilemma, which one to go for.

I have to relocate to new place (new Canton) to join the company.

Question:
1. By signing the contract (offer letter) with the first company, am I legally bound to join that company or can I still go with the 2nd company?

2. If i choose the 2nd company, will there be any complications arising in doing the above said (as the first employer may already have started the paper work with the Cantons)?

Please advice your views.
Thank you.

It's a contract. You are not obliged/legally bound to do anything but can be faced with claims for remedial compensation should you breach it. From a reputation point of view, I would suggest that you stick to the original contract and let the 2nd company know. Bluntly speaking, the minute you sign the first contract, you should let the other people know.

Money is not everything you know. Go were you will be happier at

Not knowing your present work visa status I have a third question: Do you already have a work permit for the canton that you're presently in and will it allow you to relocate to a different canton for both living and working..?

Yes, I currently have a B permit, it allows me to work for any employer as per my present Canton's words.
Whereever I relocate the new employer will just have to inform their Canton about my employment. This is what the Canton officials said to me.

So if you're not "obliged/legally bound" by a contract, what use is a contract ?

I think you'll find that there are certain obligations which can be leagally upheld

Though you have signed the contract, the initial phase of the employment is considered probationary (from 1 to 6 months), during which time you or the employer are allowed to terminate the agreement. If you think you would rather take the other job, you could exercise that right even before you start work.

However, I would caution against pulling out of a contract on a job you really like, to take a less interesting job with higher compensation. That could affect your prospects later, especially if you are not happy at the higher paying job.

Thanks for the suggestions.
I agree, one should not sacrifice the career for the sake of higher compensation.
May be at the stage of management level one can think to take up such offers.

The probationery period is 4 months.

A brief background about the companies where I've come across this current situation:
The 1st offered company is a small company, operating for nearly 12years, handling small and medium business customers in IT, with 30 employees in it, it is a Limited company; whereas the 2nd one is a 4year old company which has good name against it, operating in 7 countries with nearly 4000 employees.. (unfortunately I do not want to disclose the company names, thanks for the understanding!)

Of course, the work environment/nature I have mentioned earlier.

Now what opinion/impression you get?

That in a couple of months you will do another topic saying "im not happy at my current job what shall i do?"

Why did you get that impression?

For me this is a no brainer, most people spend the majority of their adult lives at work, as such a job you enjoy is worth it's weight in gold, far more than going to hell and back each day for the sake of a few extra quid (chf's).

Go with the job you think you will enjoy the most. I have have always found that if I'm happy at work life is so much easier to deal with

Patrick

You cant force someone to provide a service. You can however claim financially if you had to get someone else to do it.

VII. Breach of contract

Unlike the Common Law tradition Swiss law as a general rule that enables the
creditor to claim specific performance of the contract. Said principle has some limited relevance in contracts for the transfer of property
and contracts preventing a party from doing something (e.g. competing in a specified field).
However, specific performance is not available in contracts positively obliging a party to do something such as to render a service or the like.

B. Damages as general remedy for breach

The general rule is that a party to a contract not performing it correctly must pay
damages compensating the failure of performance or its imperfections.
The quantum of damages equals the difference between the actual financial situation
of the aggrieved party and the hypothetical situation in which he or she would have
been in case of a proper performance. This so-called 'positive interest' comprises also
lucrum cessans, that is, the profits lost as a consequence of the incorrectness of
performance (see also D below). The burden of proof of the amount of the damages
lies with the injured party.

Something not quite right here folks. The op's profile says British .


Why would they do anything if you are British?

Doesn't need one. British .


No such obligation exists for British citizens.

Anyway, back to the orogional question for this British op it appears that what was signed was not an employment contract but rather a letter accepting the position. These letters are always subject to contract therefore the obligation is not really there.

This was highlighted in a previous thread as well.

Non-EU but "British".