Strange clause in nanny contract.

[Trunchbull]

I've come across this in a nanny contract:

"Should the nanny wish to terminate their contract within the first 6weeks/months they would be liable for £400 towards the costs incurred by the family in recruiting them. This amount will be deducted from their final wage and any shortfall must be paid before leaving on their final day."

Is this legal? Is it advisable? Would any nanny agree to this?

as a nanny id never agree to that

I have not come across that.

Work seekers can not be charged by an agency at the time of seeking work. However I do not know of any legislation regarding recruitment costs once someone is in a job.

The job may not work out due to an issue to do with how the employer treats their employee, in which case it may not reasonable for the nanny to be responsible for recruitment costs. So some nannies may not sign it without there being an additional clause about the reason for leaving the job.

Very unusual (in the last 30 years anyway), probably not enforceable as it is a penalty, definately not enforceable if it results in payment less than the National Minimum Wage, not sure what "must be paid before leaving on their final day" means unless it is a threat of false imprisonment (!). Definitely a sign of an employer with a 19th century attitude to employment that is to be avoided at all costs (except perhaps by a nanny that wants to take them to the cleaners with a claim for automatically unfair dismissal because however outrageous the nannys claim an employment contract like that is going to give the claimant's lawyer a field day in court).

Where have you come across it?

Thanks Mr A. It's been issued as a sample contract from an agency.

Thanks for the other replies too, I didn't mean to be rude there! I would not agree to it either.

Big chain agency or a small independent? Wondering how common such a clause may become, regardless of if it can be enforced or not.

That sounds like a cheap trick on the part of the agency to ensure that parents do not try to have recourse to the agency to recover their fee if a nanny leaves in a short space of time. They probably also try to use it as a selling point with unsuspecting families who are concerned about paying a fee, probably first-time nanny families who dont realise that no experienced nanny is going to agree to such a clause.

I wouldn't sign a contract with that in.

Can I ask about a clause I came across? I can't remember exactly how it was worded, but it was along the lines of 'if the nanny is off work due to an injury that she later receives a settlement for, she is obliged to reimburse her employer for money paid to her during sick leave'. Is that legal?

Don't know about the legalities, but if part of the nanny's compensation includes lost wages, it would be reasonable to repay them if she had in fact been paid in full (not a lower "sick pay" rate than her usual pay.)

But if she had been paid, she couldn't claim for lost wages in the first place, so it looks as if they're after money from her "pain and suffering" compo, which seems morally wrong at the very least.

Hmm.

It doesn't really matter what's in the contract, if you agree by the terms then you are contractually bound by them. Fairness always depends on your point of view but that clause is clear and I would expect to feel pretty comfortable going to court having included it, had the terms agreed and signed and enforced it.

Read what you sign is the mantra.

Outraged, I've seen that one too, it came from a payroll company nanny contract.

'if you agree by the terms then you are contractually bound by them'

I don't think that's true. There are certain rights protected by law and you can't draw up a contract to subvert them, it wouldn't be legally binding regradless of whether you've signed it/agreed to it or not. For example, you can't pay someone less that NMW, producing a contract to say they've agreed to be paid £1 an hour, doesn't make it legal.

I agree with Outraged.

1st clause no way would I sign - sounds to me that if an employer had that then get have lost several nannies which therefor makes me think they are bad employers to work for

2nd clause - guess if they had to pay out for a temp nanny while you were off for a long time and you get a claim settled maybe have in it payment for temp staff in the insurance

A family I'm temping for is having 1/2 my salary paid by her medical insurance company as she is incapable of looking after her 2 young children after her operation

So basically, if a nanny starts a new position and the family treat her awfully, she has to buy her way out of the job.

"It doesn't really matter what's in the contract, if you agree by the terms then you are contractually bound by them."

This is totally untrue. One of the many reasons that you may not be bound by terms you have agreed to is if the terms impose a penalty (i.e. a sum payable consequent on an action of one party that is not a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred by the other party).

on the subject of contracts.
If you drive an employer car as you liable to pay the excess yourself if an accident occurs?

Florence I have in my contract that the employers will pay the access regardless who is at fault

You could be liable for the excess on the insurance policy. May depend though what is written in the car use agreement, in the contract, or other supporting documents. It is something that should be thought about by all parties concerned.

Yes I thought that was normal with company cars too.

just read the contract again. It says "if you have an accident where it is not possible to claim against a third party, you may be required to pay the excess due for any claim and the Employer should be allowed to deduct from you pay"

No mention of supplying nanny with copy of insurance policy each year so she know what the excess it, could be £50 or £200

And so if while on school run, someone dents the car while I am in school, I have to pay.

To be honest have may own car, new model, but not big enough for three baby seats in back. But this will be deal breaker for me. Have choice of jobs, and this contract that contained countless other unworkable points has not impressed me.

That's pretty odd, I have to say. If the fees are that hard to fork over, then perhaps cut the agency out of the hiring process. What I might do is actually say the first six months are a fixed term and neither party can terminate the contract in that time. But, I feel this would only be reasonable if it goes both ways.

How can you have neither party terminate a contract. Uk law states a months notice if a contract in place after first month of working.
Working as a nanny is very different to working in a big office. a nanny doesnt know what the job is like until she starts.
To be honest if you have found someone you trust to look after your children and she comes with qualifications and references you have checked. Then I do think a little trust would not go a miss.