Lay Off Clause - Fair?

[nannynick]

This has come up a few times on here over the years. As we approach the Summer Holidays, this clause in some nanny contracts might be actioned, so I wondered what the current feelings are about it.

Here are examples of the clause:

(this was posted by a Mumsnetter in 2011)
"There may be occasions when the Employer is on a family holiday in the UK or abroad and your services are not required for the duration of the holiday. In these circumstances, the Employer reserves the right to lay off and you will be paid statutory guarantee payments during the period of lay-off."

"There may be occasions when your Employer does not require your services. In these circumstances your Employer reserves the right to lay you off and you will be paid statutory guarantee payments during the period of lay-off."

Gov.uk says that the max amount of Statutory Guarantee Payment is £25 per day for up to 5 days in a 3 month period.

A variation on this could be where there is a Percentage Paid

"The employer reserves the right to lay you off and agrees to pay you x% of your pay for the duration of such lay-off."

Do you feel clauses like this should be used for when a family go on holiday, where the nannies annual leave entitlement has already been fully used (with prior authorisation from employer)?

Should these clauses be in contracts by default or just an option that could be added in special circumstances, or maybe they are not appropriate at all in a nanny contract?

Some parents would not dream of not paying their nanny their usual wage in circumstances where the family go on holiday more often than the nanny gets holiday entitlement. Others though will use whatever the law allows as a means to pay little or nothing.

I assume, sadly, Luna that the point is that most inexperienced nannies without the cash to pay for legal advice or a union rep will just roll over and assume that they have to do whatever their contract says.

I've got a madly unreasonable clause imposed in my employment contract. In the end I signed expressing that it was under protest and I had no intention whatsoever of abiding by such a grossly unreasonable clause if push ever came to shove.

But I'm a middle aged professional with legal experience and two barristers in the family.

I assume, sadly, Luna that the point is that most inexperienced nannies without the cash to pay for legal advice or a union rep will just roll over and assume that they have to do whatever their contract says.

That alas is also what I would assume. Unless you know something about contract law you may consider a clause such as this to be normal and accept it.

Nannies don't really have a Union, they do now have an Association (www.bapn.org.uk) in the UK which they can join and get advice from but many are not members.

I am a nanny employer and wouldn't dream of including this kind of clause in my nanny's contract. I wrote my nanny's employment contract myself (I am a lawyer). I would have been embarrassed to have even suggested it - completely unfair on a nanny to not be paid because we didn't need her.

This clause was in the nanny contract I was provided with from the payroll company and in the one from the nanny agency - I removed it before giving the contract to my nanny as I would never have asked her to accept this ( actually I removed/altered so many clauses I might as well have just drafted from scratch in retrospect )

thisisme what is the clause you agreed to but didn't want to and why agree to it if so insane?

Flagrant restraint of trade clause forbidding me to work in the same industry for six months after my notice period was served out, imposed on me when I moved from contract to permament. HR were absolutely adamant that is was non-negotiable and in the end I just signed it, safe in the knowledge that it was utterly unenforceable due to the fine work that William Wilberforce did two hundred years ago in abolishing slavery in the British Empire.

..I am aware that there are some circumstances in which like that might possibly be enforceable, but none of them will apply to me.

as an employer, I'd say this is really unfair, however for a nanny stuck on the wrong side of one of these clauses, I'll bet my bottom dollar they'd find alternative temp employment over the period from families who are desperate for help in the school holidays, so if an inexperienced nanny finds herself stuck, I would imagine it's relatively easy to become unstuck.

Equally, I do take exception to the posts that come up here every now and then where a nanny who is being paid full pay over a holiday period but is not taking it as their own holiday allowance takes exception to being asked to work during that period. If they're on full pay and not on holiday, getting name tapes on ready for September / heading to the uniform shop / clearing out the toy cupboard are absolutely fair game. A little light houseplant watering / hamster cleaning thrown in too. Reason on both sides.

Wow. That's unusual

And yes happy to do child related chores if have extra holiday but have always been given time off and normally go away myself

I remember it being on a couple of contracts I looked at when I was writing my first nanny contract and I removed it.

Very unfair.