6 month contract

[Geoff1969]

I've been interviewed for a role which the company says is permanent but is only being offered on a 6-month contract initially. They say this is because they want to use that 6 month period to define the role and responsibilities as it is replacing someone going on maternity level who isn't going to return and they want to take the opportunity to revise the job description.

I can't think of any reason why this couldn't be done under a permanent job offer though. Under 2 years' service you have minimal employment rights anyway so it would be relatively easy to get rid of the new person if things don't work out for whatever reason.

Naturally I wouldn't want to accept the role on these terms as there's no guarantee of a permanent role at the end of it, however adamant they are now.

Can anyone with more HR experience me see what sensible reason there could be for this way of doing things (if any)?

It sounds like they are not certain the role will be exactly the same, so they don't want to offer a permanent contract in case it needs changing later.

You are right that there's no guarantee that you'll be offered the permanent position when it is defined, although it sounds like it would probably be yours to mess up, if that makes sense. And as you, say, you have no job security for two years anyway, so there's no guarantee of permanent employment regardless.

Tricky one. I know there's no job security under 2 years anyway but this feels even more flimsy. Surely they can still amend a job description within the framework of a permanent job offer? That happens all the time in the natural course of things eg after an annual appraisal or as a role grows organically.

I guess it's the unknown - it could lead to a permanent contract after 6 months or could end up with me job hunting again. And I don't know the company so have no feel for how genuine they are.

Another question - if after 6 months it becomes permanent, does the 2 year thing start then or is it 2 years from the start of the 6-month contract? Is this the norm for senior roles now? I would expect a bit more flexibility from their side to attract the right talent.

Yes of course they can amend the job description if it's not contractual, but perhaps there's a possibility the job title might change or other things about the role, I don't know.

In terms of your employment rights they are based on continuous service so wouldn't start again at 6 months.

It's not the norm for senior roles, it's presumably based on their specific circumstances as described to you. It doesn't sound like there's any reason to think what they've said isn't an accurate reflection of the situation.

Ultimately it's a negotiation - if you get offered the job and don't want to accept it on those terms, tell them that, and if they're struggling to attract the right talent with this approach, then as you say, they'll probably be a bit more flexible in terms of adding 'permanent' to the contract wording even though it makes no material difference. On the other hand if there are several good candidates who are happy with this approach, they might not need to use the term permanent in the contract.

The situation is what it is, and the realities of what happens at the 6 month point won't be changed by whether the phrase permanent is used in the initial contract. It won't change their actions at all, and presumably that's the important thing.

I suspect they are keeping it open in case the person going on maternity leave changes their mind.

Thanks for the replies, if I was 10 years younger I would take the chance but at this point in my career I'll hang on for a permanent role, although of course I know there's always the 2 year period with any new position.