Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Original poster

Queries on new job contract

33 replies

Jackstini · 30/12/2010 14:09

Any ideas on the best course of action if I have queries on a new job contract?
I just want a second opinion as to if all the jargon is just par for the course or if there is anything I should be wary of.
Do solicitors do that type of thing and if so how much would it be?

Also are any of them open now as I am due to see my current boss next Tues which would be the ideal time to resign. (We only see each other about once every 10 days)
Think I am just a bit nervous! Not moved jobs for 7 years.

OP posts:
Original poster
Jackstini · 30/12/2010 22:43

anyone? just feeling very nervous.
dh thinks it is hilarious I trust MNers with my life but there you go... Grin

OP posts:
eviscerateyourmemory · 30/12/2010 22:45

Are you a member of a union? The union I belong to will scrutinise contracts for their members.

Original poster
Jackstini · 30/12/2010 23:09

Thanks eym -no am not. there is only 2 of us in the uk, is very small company

OP posts:
BarkisIsWilling · 01/01/2011 20:10

Depends. I'd think that most companies have standard contracts of employment as these are usually templates that are altered as needed. Generally the jargon will be standard.

If there is any particular phrase or paragraph that worries you specifically, then why not post it here? I'm sure there will be someone who is able to help. Oh, and Congrats on the new job:)

Original poster
Jackstini · 01/01/2011 21:10

Thanks biw.
Well one of them is
"We will review your salary annually and any increase or reduction in your salary will depend on your performance and will be at our absolute discretion"
Also notice period is not same both ways; their notice to me is 1 week per year worked - min 4 weeks, max 12. My notice to them is 3 months.
Any opinions gratefully received!

OP posts:
PinkElephantsOnParade · 02/01/2011 15:04

I am not an employment lawyer, but in my work as an accountant have dealt with employmwnt contracts a bit.

I think that it would not be lawful to reduce your salary without your consent so the first clause is certainly not usual and is probably illegal.

It would also be unlawful for you to be required to give your employer more notice than they are required to give you. And the notice they are giving you in this clause would be less than the statutory minimum, I think.

I would not be impressed with a company that asked me to sign a contract with those clauses in.

My advice is don't accept those terms.

Want2bSupermum · 02/01/2011 15:14

I would not even go back to the table with a company that gave me a contract with those clauses in it. I would tell them, 'thank you but I can't work to these conditions so it is best I turn your offer down.'

The problem with the first clause is that if you are not doing your job properly then you should not be employed in that job or you should be offered further training to bring you up to speed. Reducing your salary doesn't change your ability to do the job.

Original poster
Jackstini · 02/01/2011 15:15

Thanks peop - yes my plan is to ask them to amend those 2 clauses.

Is always a bit daunting to go through so many pages when you are not used to the lingo.
Anyone know much about post termination restrictions? That is the last bit I am unsure of having read it through.
Am not sure how much they can enforce a list of specific companies I can't work for in the future after leaving them (for 6 months) or product types I can't sell.

OP posts:
Original poster
Jackstini · 02/01/2011 15:19

Thanks want2b - my thoughts are any reduction in salary would only ever be as a specific disciplinary procedure/demotion type thing. I know people who work in the company and this has never happened, I think they have gone way OOT in covering their own bums and being unblameable (sp?) for anything and need to be a bit more reasonable.
It is a very good deal overall though so not something I want to walk away from if I can tweak the terms instead.
V Confused

OP posts:
PinkElephantsOnParade · 02/01/2011 15:32

Be very careful of post termination restriction clauses as increasingly they are fully enforceable even if they seem to be unreasonable. Be prepared to be bound by them if you agree to them by signing the contract.

It is difficult to say what kind of restrictions are reasonable as it depends on the industry and your level of seniority. I would think that resticting employment with a fairly short list of competitors for 6 months would be resonable. Completely banning you from selling certain product types for any period of time would be less so. The rule of thumb is that employers cannot impose restrictions which make it difficult for an employee to pursue their occupation, but interpretation of this is very difficult. The more generalised and long lasting the restriction, the more unreasonable it would be held to be.

In short, if you don't like the clause don't sign the contract.

littleducks · 02/01/2011 15:38

I worked for a council and the notice period from them to me was 1 week for every year and from me to them was 4 weeks

PinkElephantsOnParade · 02/01/2011 15:47

littleducks, was that recently? It is not lawful to require more notice from the employee than the employer, though quite often the employer has to give more if the employee has several years service.

Original poster
Jackstini · 02/01/2011 15:53

The 6 month product thing should not be too much of an issue. They have pretty much listed every competitor in the main area of my expertise though! (including my current company)
I would not be looking to move for years anyway tbh; I wasn't looking to move now but they approached me.

OP posts:
littleducks · 02/01/2011 15:53

May 2010

PinkElephantsOnParade · 02/01/2011 15:56

littleducks - then that contract was unlawful and would not be enforceable.

littleducks · 02/01/2011 15:57

really! i worked my notice as well, good to know for the future

PinkElephantsOnParade · 02/01/2011 15:59

Yes - you could have just given them the notice they were required to give you and they would not have been able to do anything about it.

A lot of employers just try it on with employment contracts and wait for you to challenge it. Even Councils who you would expect to know better.

Original poster
Jackstini · 02/01/2011 16:09

Thanks for all your help peop and others.
It is annoying to think the company have engaged a solicitor to prepare the contracts and they include unlawful elements!
I will definitely be asking for some amends to specific clauses before I sign anything.

OP posts:
LionsAreScary · 02/01/2011 16:30

I have 10 years experience in HR including preparation of standard employment contracts.

The notice clause (where you have to give 3 months and they only have to give 4 weeks) is so ridiculous I wonder if it could be a typo? I.e. someone amending a standard contract without paying proper attention.

Original poster
Jackstini · 02/01/2011 16:49

I honestly don't know Lions but don't think so. The only time is says it is the same is during the first 6 months (probationary) period when it is 1 week either way. The main contracts states "we must give you one week's notice for each complete year of employment subject to a minimum of four weeks and a maximum of twelve weeks" "you must give us 3 months notice"

With your experience, what would you say is the best way to get it checked out - without it costing a fortune or taking ages? (ha ha I don't need much do I?!)

OP posts:
BarkisIsWilling · 02/01/2011 16:59

Have a look on here regarding notice periods.

flowerytaleofNewYork · 02/01/2011 18:01

Pinkelephants are you able to point me to something legal about what you said about it being unlawful to require longer notice from an employee than from an employer.?

It's just I've never drafted a contract for any employer who wanted that in it so have never had to look it up specifically so wasn't aware of any restrictions along those lines.

Jackstini definitely insist on protection of 3 months' notice on either side. Very unlikely that clause about salary would enable them to reduce your pay just like that I agree.

Original poster
Jackstini · 02/01/2011 18:20

I was going to ask that flowery as I could not get it from the link biw give below - some good info on there though biw - thanks Smile
I don't really mind on the period, as long as it is the same both ways!

OP posts:
Want2bSupermum · 02/01/2011 18:33

With regards to the salary reduction and increase I would get it in writing as to what the company procedure is. If they don't follow that procedure you will have something in black and white to fall back on.

My contract with a prior employer had a restrictive employment clause but it was backed by the company paying me basic pay for the period they require me to not work for a competitor. I thought that was standard practice.

If the company came to you then you should be able to get these clauses changed. If they get arsey with you remind them of this.

PinkElephantsOnParade · 02/01/2011 19:15

flowery - the point re notice being the same on both sides is something I was told my the solicitor helping us with drafting employment contracts at a previous employer. I can't actually find a specific reference for it.

Amyway, the OP is at the point of negotiating over terms so now is the time to get rid of clauses like this.

However, I have never come across a contract requiring more notice from the employee than tha employer and would definitely never sign a contract with such a clause. It is just against natural justice and I would suspect that an employer insisting on such a clause would be the type of employer who get rid of a lot of employees on a whim.

A three month notice period is a long one for an employee, and I would want a lot back in return for agreeing to it.

At the very least I would want assurance that the obligations placed on me by the contract were at least matched by the obligations of the employer towards me.