New contract at work
- Thread starter gcol
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I have a dim and distant memory of there being an obligation to send contractual changes in writing to the address that they have on record for you.gcol said:
That's not an unusual clause in my experience, not an unreasonable one.
Yes. It's a legal contract, so they can seek compensation from you if a competitor stands to gain from their employment of you.
You could choose not to agree to the change of contract, but (1) they could force the change upon you, and (2) unless you have a particular reason not to agree (like you're about to leave and go to work for a competitor) then there's no harm in agreeing.
And what happens if:
1. a competitor offers me extra money to join them and my boss won't meet it? Do I take the offer or say I can't cause it's in my contract that I can't leave to go to a competitor?
2. for some reason I got sacked and then got offered a job with a competitor? Sorry I can't take the job....
3. My boss won't give me a pay rise so I look for another job with a competitor. But I can't because....
So what am I expected to do? I've no plans to leave but I might want to one day.
1. a competitor offers me extra money to join them and my boss won't meet it? Do I take the offer or say I can't cause it's in my contract that I can't leave to go to a competitor?
2. for some reason I got sacked and then got offered a job with a competitor? Sorry I can't take the job....
3. My boss won't give me a pay rise so I look for another job with a competitor. But I can't because....
So what am I expected to do? I've no plans to leave but I might want to one day.
Sponsored Links
Do you mean if your boss won't give you a salary increase?gcol said:
The question wouldn't arise unless you were either looking for a job elsewhere or were head-hunted. Either way, you're still bound by the modified contract.
Correct in both of those cases. Or you could ask the competitor to negotiate for a settlement with your ex-employer.
Do what everybody else does in this situation - stay in your current job, or look for one that isn't with a competitor.
If your situation is such that the only companies you would be likely to work for are competitors, then I suspect that your employer wouldn't have a leg to stand on, since he would be restricting your right to work in your chosen trade. However, I suspect that there might well be more companies who are non-competitors that who are competitors - for example, if your present employer has a 'territory' that doesn't overlap with that of your new employer, then they couldn't be said to be in competition.
Yes that's what I mean. But let me just say that my boss has been spot on with me and we get along great. This is all hypothetical.Softus said:
I'm a technical/quality engineer for a company that manufactures and retails fire protection equipment - mainly fire extinguishers. It's very "pigeon-holed" work and quite a small group of people in the country that are involved. So any other similar position would really have to be with a competitor.Softus said:
Interesting move by your boss then.
I'd be tempted to ask him, politely mind, what the new clause means, and why he's chosen to introduce it now. Is it possible that he's a bit devious, and he's testing to see who appears to made uncomfortable by the new clause?
I'd be tempted to ask him, politely mind, what the new clause means, and why he's chosen to introduce it now. Is it possible that he's a bit devious, and he's testing to see who appears to made uncomfortable by the new clause?
Except under very unusual circumstances such a clause in an employment terms and conditions is illegal and totally unenforcable as has been mentioned by others here.
No employer can force you to sing away your right to work, such actions would be considered as intimidation and thus a criminal offence under the Employment Act and possibly even the Criminal Justice Act.
Employment Law is a minefield and rather complicated in general, but on this particular point it is clear. Further, such a restrictive contract would likely be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The only way around this would be for you or your employer to give a six month notice period.
No employer can force you to sing away your right to work, such actions would be considered as intimidation and thus a criminal offence under the Employment Act and possibly even the Criminal Justice Act.
Employment Law is a minefield and rather complicated in general, but on this particular point it is clear. Further, such a restrictive contract would likely be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The only way around this would be for you or your employer to give a six month notice period.
Nice one thanks Thermo - I look forward to hearing what is said. 
Softus, yes he can be a bit devious but I don't think he's done this to test the water. Just found out that this new contract was only being sent to employees that have been with the company for less than 12 months.
Thanks Stulz, it's reassuring that someone says it's a definite no-no. It gives me more assurance that this is out of order and, if pushed to sign it, would take proper legal advice.
Softus, yes he can be a bit devious but I don't think he's done this to test the water. Just found out that this new contract was only being sent to employees that have been with the company for less than 12 months.
Thanks Stulz, it's reassuring that someone says it's a definite no-no. It gives me more assurance that this is out of order and, if pushed to sign it, would take proper legal advice.
2
2scoops0406
It's utter lobbocks, you cannot be prevented from working, regardless of whether it's for a competitor or not. Sign it anyway, an illegal contract is unenforceable anyway.
I'd love to see it challenged in court. Sir, I am unemployed because my old company won't let me work for x, utter sh**e !!
I'd love to see it challenged in court. Sir, I am unemployed because my old company won't let me work for x, utter sh**e !!
http://www.emplaw.co.uk/researchfree-redirector.aspx?StartPage=data/081002.htm
Post termination restrictive covenants (ie Restrictive covenants in employment contracts which are intended to operate after employment has ended) are anti-competitive and in restraint of trade. The basic position is therefore that they are void as being contrary to public policy. If an employee contests the legal validity of such a covenant the onus is therefore on the employer to establish that it is a justifiable covenant.
Thus, for example, agreements not to poach staff or customers/clients from the employer or not to work for a competitor after employment has ended are basically void. They are enforceable only if the ex-employer can show that they do no more than is reasonable to protect his legitimate business interests.
Post termination restrictive covenants (ie Restrictive covenants in employment contracts which are intended to operate after employment has ended) are anti-competitive and in restraint of trade. The basic position is therefore that they are void as being contrary to public policy. If an employee contests the legal validity of such a covenant the onus is therefore on the employer to establish that it is a justifiable covenant.
Thus, for example, agreements not to poach staff or customers/clients from the employer or not to work for a competitor after employment has ended are basically void. They are enforceable only if the ex-employer can show that they do no more than is reasonable to protect his legitimate business interests.
This is vague and woffley tosh from beginning to end.Stulz said:
Oh no - I was wrong. This second paragraph knocks "tosh" into a cocked hat.
Ah - we've returned to reality; this part is completely correct.
Oops - spoke to soon; back in la-la land.
These are both reasonable statements, and quite likely to be accurate.
__________________________
gcol - be careful of other people's interpretations of Employment Law (including mine), because that's all they are. The information you posted (in italics) is a clear and good interpretation, IMHO, but it isn't fact.
You won't find any legal professional who will comfortably forecast the outcome of a court hearing in this area, but the most important part of the whole thing is that the onus would appear to be on the ex-employer to prove breach of contract on the part of the employee, AND to demonstrate a material loss that resulted from that breach (e.g. loss of revenue).
I'm a bit concerned that your boss is attempting to change only those contracts for staff of less than 12 months service. I'm not aware of any 12 month threshold in employment law (although there is a 24 month threshold, for example), so this is odd. Intuitively it would appear to be discriminatory behaviour, but I can't think of a way to successfully argue this point. If your boss isn't being rational, then it's possible that the mere mention (if you choose to do any mentioning at all) that the change discriminates against newer employees might make him rethink.
I'm thinking that you have the following choices:
1. Rock the boat now, possibly refusing to agree to the change.
2. Tacitly agree to the change, making your boss aware that you're not 100% happy about it.
3. Silently accept the change, in the near certainty that he wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court.
Sponsored Links
