Training on non-working day

[opticaldelusion]

I work 30 hours for a company, four full days. On my non-working day I have another (zero hours) job. If I don't go, I don't get paid. My company has arranged training on my non-working day and is putting pressure on me to attend. My friend is saying that as a self-employed person in my second job it's up to me to put money aside for eventualities such as leave, sick etc. and I should just suck up the loss of earnings that week and attend the training.

Interested in the legal position on this. I'm assuming I'm not obliged to attend. Bigger job won't pay me any extra - I would just swap my day that week. I can't swap my day at my smaller job as I'm only required on that particular day. I really don't see why I should be out of pocket...

What does your contract say about working hours, variations, flexibility, training or anything else relevant?

My contract states that I accept that I am required to work such hours as are necessary for the performance of my duties and that my company reserves the right to alter working hours.

So that's pretty standard I would have thought and suggests that legally they can demand I come in on a day I don't work for them.

Which is pretty bollocks really isn't it? This isn't that big an issue but why in the world do people tolerate such one-sided contracts? I'm not an expert on contract law by any means but I do know that a contract can be unfair if it's deemed to overly favour one party. Which surely an employment contract like this does.

a contract can be unfair if it's deemed to overly favour one party

I'm afraid the legislation to which you refer only has very limited application to employment contracts.

That's the type of clause that may or may not be enforceable. If the company regularly exercises that flexibility, and requires additional hours or varies hours for business need, then it would be far more likely to be enforceable.

If in reality it's in the contracts but in practice your hours have never ever been varied or anything similar, and no attempt made to do so, then you could argue that custom and practice had rendered the clause irrelevant.

Same as if an employer puts in a clause in a contract saying they can vary terms whenever they like, that doesn't mean that will actually be able to if the proposed change is unreasonable. Or if they put a 'we can relocate you anywhere in the UK' clause in, that would only be enforceable in roles where this would be reasonable and expected.

There is absolutely consideration given to the imbalance in the power relationship between employer and employee, which is why it is important that things like opting out of working time regulations needs to be done separately. An unfair or unreasonable clause in an employment contract wouldn't be enforceable. That's not to say this particular clause isn't enforceable, it depends on the circumstances, including the nature of the role.