To think six month notice period is wild?

Different sector, but this is the case for those working in teaching in England, as teachers in state schools are bound to the following:

Resign by 31st October to leave on 31st December
Resign by 28th February to leave on 30th April (or end of the spring term if moving to another teaching role)
Resign by 31st May to leave on 31st August

This means that if a teacher hands in their notice on 1st June, they are contractually obliged to remain at the school until 31st December. They may be able to negotiate early release from their contract, but this isn’t guaranteed, especially in shortage subject areas. There are clear and understandable reasons for the regulations, but they were written at a time when it was very rare for teachers to leave teaching to pursue an alternative career, and cause real issues for those seeking employment in a different sector as very few companies or organisations are willing to wait for a teacher to work their notice period, particularly during the summer months.

This is all completely normal for a director level service agreement (although the pilon should align with the notice period)

IME it's a thing in really senior roles (where a transition of leadership would be difficult) and business development ( where there's a possibility you'd run off with clients and contacts).

Sometimes employers are willing to negotiate at point of resignation. Especially if relations have broken down and the leaver being there for the notice period does more harm than good.

The second appearance of "wild" in the last ten minutes. Oh god. New buzzwords 😱
It isn't wild. It may be unnecessary, unacceptable, illegal or just inconvenient but what it certainly isn't, is wild.

3-6 month notice periods are the norm in my sector (HE) but pretty much unheard of elsewhere unless very senior.

It’s quite normal in senior positions

As I feared: completely asymmetrical. I am not an employment lawyer but I'm willing to bet this is not legal. You are well within your rights to push back.

I'm a recruiter specialising in fairly senior level professional services type roles and I can't help in regards to the legalities of the contract as I'm not HR or Legal, but I can say that 6 months notice is VERY unusual unless you are at Director / "C" level and even then it's uncommon (I work with big Tech/investment banking/Pharma etc).
It will definitely go against you when applying for jobs. The only time a client will wait is if the person has a very specific skill set or reputation, and usually in more of a headhunt situation.
Definitely unreasonable.

IAAL - It is becoming more and more common for more senior employees.

Have you been there long enough for redundancy? If so, and you're minded to shop around for a new job anyway, can you just decline to sign? Do you have to tell them you're working "under protest" while it's being sorted?

I think you'd be hard-pressed to get anyone to stick around for more than three months as a new employer wouldn't likely want to wait that long for the new person to start. Companies sometimes pay gardening leave when they don't want senior staff to take any key information with them or be able to approach competitors for a time in more competitive fields but it's really hard to hold people to long notice periods and you certainly can't make them actually work.

It sounds as though there are other concerns with the contract - compare it clause by clause with the Acas one.

Don't sign new contract unless you want the payrise, I guess!

I think previous contract should be protected under TUPE but I am not very knowledgeable on employment law....

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) regulations protect employee rights when a business or service changes owners, ensuring terms, conditions, and continuity of service transfer to the new employer. It applies to business sales and service provision changes (e.g., outsourcing/contracting), automatically transferring staff to the new employer.

I’ve got a 6 month notice period (senior leadership in a global company) and am a lawyer by trade. I think it’s pretty standard in senior roles - I would think it’s most likely enforceable, unless it’s disproportionate to the actual seniority of the role. I’d be realistic about what you’ll get from legal advice because it’s going to be caveated rather than black and white. My take when accepting 6 months was

• I’ve rarely known corporates enforce them because of costs, reputation, uncertainty, etc
• its nuts to keep unhappy checked out people around that long and a shorter period is usually offered if you want/need it
• If you don’t, it’s a nice high base to start negotiating PILON on termination or garden leave

My biggest consideration would be whether it’s reasonable for the role or whether the employer is overreaching to make it harder for you to leave.

As others recommend, get legal advice. But you also need to realize that the clock has started ticking on this. If you refuse to sign they can let you go under your current notice. If you continue to work there, they could also deem that you have, by default, accepted the new conditions, even if you haven't signed. You need to decide how much of a deal breaker this is.

Yeah, that doesn’t sound right!

On the bright side, if you accept the new contract and were made redundant for some reason, 6 months notice would be included in your package. So it’s not all bad…

Don't worry about it, our company went through this. Managers were placed on contracts with minimum 3mths notice, but a couple of them later gave 1mths notice. HR told us we couldn't do anything about it as they'd been paid for what they'd worked, no more and no less. In other words our company wouldn't sue them or pursue them as there was literally nothing to gain.

I would NOT be signing this….

Hell no. I would not be signing that.

Why not speak to ACAS before spending money on a solicitor?

www.acas.org.uk/contact