Employer wants to give me less notice than I give them

[secretskillrelationships]

Having been with a small firm for just over a year, I have finally been given a contract. This is clearly an off-the-shelf product and, at 20 pages long, is complete overkill for a company of less than 10 people.

I have a number of issues with it but, in particular, the company will give me the statutory minimum in terms of notice if they want to dismiss me but require me to give them a month's notice.

They have also included a range of petty clauses none of which the 'bosses' will, naturally be following. These include a dress code which now says no jeans (even though they routinely wear jeans to work), no private calls or e-mails (ditto) etc etc. We now have to apply in writing not less than 4 weeks before for any holiday in duplicate etc etc.

It will also be up to our 'line managers' to agree whether we can take time for appointments and whether they will agree that we can make up the time or if it has to be taken as holiday or unpaid. Again, requests have to be submitted in duplicate. We have been advised that appointments should be made outside the normal working day (9-5 for most staff, but only the women are office-based).

In my recent appraisal, my boss was keen to emphasise that the company would run pretty much as before with the flexibility that has been available to date but having read the contract I am feeling increasingly unnerved.

Hi Secret :)

It's perfectly normal and legal to stipulate different notice periods - all my employers have dictated I would have to give 3 months notice if I was to leave, but they would give less if they were to terminate my employment through conduct, lll health, redundancy etc.

The petty clauses I've come across too and they seem pointless really as "custom and practice" will show that these things aren't enforced and therefore it will be what is actually happening that will be relevant! They may suddenly communicate that they will enforce these rules to all, but then at least everyone will be dealt with fairly.

The out of hours appointments seems pretty standard to me - I've always had to either make up the time or take holidays - although my employers have always said they would be more lenient about hospital appointments as these aren't easily changed.

I wouldn't be too unnerved, it all sounds quite standard to me :)

I would disagree that differing notice periods are 'normal'. I don't think that's the case and I think that's particularly harsh. I wouldn't accept a contract that required a month's notice from me but didn't entitle me to the same in the event of (eg) redundancy.

Stuff about time off sounds normal. Most of my clients like to be flexible but most of them also like to retain the option to not be flexible if there is a problem.

Forget what the bosses do, that's up to them. Do you wear jeans currently and do you object to not being able to?

If it's a standard contract they've acquired somewhere they may not have edited it at all, as you suspect, so if there are things that you don't think are consistent with current arrangements or you think are a departure from current arrangements, now is the time to raise them.

I suppose the way most employers get round it flowery is that e.g. I may have to give 3 months notice but they would give statutory notice if I was dismissed which would therefore depend upon my service with the Company.

I've come across this alot and am not saying it's necessarily generous or right, but it is quite common practice (I work in HR lol). However, it might be worth a challenge, you never know they might change it! :)

It's not about getting round it; it's perfectly legal as you say. It's just not common practice at all in my own experience (obviously we have to speak as we find!) and not something I would personally accept for myself or recommend to (employer) clients as reasonable terms and conditions or particularly good practice.

I had that in my old job - was to give 1 month's notice to employer but was only entitled to one week from them. When they tried to make me redundant (talked myself back into the job at stage 2 meeting) I contacted ACAS and CAB about it and both said that, it's a crap contract to have, but not illegal.

If anything it tought me to read the small print for the next contract - plus I actually negotiated change of terms to one month either way when I had the redundancy meeting.

Thanks for all your responses. As I understand it, prior to the contract, they would have been required to give me a month's notice (as I am paid monthly). I do think the contract is to cover themselves and would only be used in exceptional circumstances but who's to say what those might be at some point down the road.

That said, while I like working there and it's been great to be back in the employed workforce, this isn't my forever dream job so probably just overthinking a lot of it.

I guess I'm just surprised by the boss/worker thing which I've never really come across before. I've never been particularly well 'managed' but there has always been a 'reasonable' approach to phone calls, appointments etc even in contracts I've had.

You are not entitled to a month's notice just because you are paid monthly, no. However in the absence of anything specified in terms of notice, you are required to give a week and your employer is required to give you the same up to two years' continuous service and a week per complete year of service thereafter.

So the requirement for you to give a month is a change to your existing terms and conditions.