New statement of terms of employment

Tea_biscuits

Hi,
I am after a bit of advice regarding a new contract my husband has been given.

He started work for the company 4th december 2006, an investment company has recently purchased the company and are now changing the workers contracted hours, holiday pay rate, company sick pay etc etc. A new statement of terms of employment were issued this Thursday however the wording does confuse me a little. The new changes come in to effect from monday 23rd july 2012.

There are 2 dates on the contract which is where im getting confused:
Commencement date: 4th decemeber 2006
And commencement date of continuous employment 4th december 2006.

Should the commencement date not be the date these changes begin to occur??

I am thinking that if my husbands signs this is he not signing to say these terms are correct since 2006???


A number of the items in the SoToE refer to the general conditions of employment which look as though they were typed up yesterday! - no date or version number!! The general conditions have all changed a great deal along with the SoToE. These general conditions also quote to refer back to the company/staff handbook which is still 1 month away from publication!!


Can someone please advise if this is ok to sign? I'm worried way down the line the company will pin him for something and then say 'well it was in your contract commencement date 2006' rather than being something that only came into effect in july 2012.


Thank you if you've made it this far.
Viki x

marybelle01

Assuming that he is happy with the changes - or if not happy, willing to accept them - stop worrying. These are both the dates of his contract starting - and kind of useful, since that's when all sorts of rights start clocking up from. There's nothing untoward unless he is objecting to the changes. Which is a whole different ball game.

Tea_biscuits

Thank you, I do worry though his hours have been cut and I worry that they may try something among he lines of oh it's always been this way, when up until now it hasn't. Should it not state a date these changes take effect from? If for example they tried to say he owed them money or something how do we prove differently if the terms in this contract are being back dated to dec 2006?

marybelle01

You prove it with his former contract and wage slips. But I think you are worrying unnecessarily. This is not uncommon in contracts being renewed. They can't back date terms in a contract. This is just the date he started.

I'm not an employee, but I see it commonly. Someone started work with this employer in 2005, but continuous service may be from 1998.

princessdon

The commencement date should be the new date.

He should have previous contracts with the details but personally I'd want it changed.

marybelle01

princessdon wrote: »

The commencement date should be the new date.

He should have previous contracts with the details but personally I'd want it changed.

I don't agree. There are many situations where the commencement date with an employer and the date for continuous service are entirely different.

Tea_biscuits

Cheers, this isn't just being renewed it's contents have totally changed. Holiday pay rates/ short term working/ being layed off etc.
Does the date of the contract bring signed verify the date the changes came into play?

princessdon

marybelle01 wrote: »

I don't agree. There are many situations where the commencement date with an employer and the date for continuous service are entirely different.

I am about to sign a new contract the commencement date will be August (new job, new T&C's, new salary etc) with a different continous service date.

Personally I'd be happier if there were huge changes to T&C's that the start date of that new contract was the effective date and not prior.

princessdon

viki61 wrote: »

Cheers, this isn't just being renewed it's contents have totally changed. Holiday pay rates/ short term working/ being layed off etc.
Does the date of the contract bring signed verify the date the changes came into play?

I don't know (sorry) but most contracts have a clause that it will supercede previous contracts etc, so in effect you are signing them away.

you should always be able to rely on them if they were in effect at the time so it shouldn't and probably wouldn't ever be an issue in reality, just me personally would rather have an effective date noted before I signed.

marybelle01

princessdon wrote: »

I am about to sign a new contract the commencement date will be August (new job, new T&C's, new salary etc) with a different continous service date.

Personally I'd be happier if there were huge changes to T&C's that the start date of that new contract was the effective date and not prior.

If it's an entirely new job then I agree. But the OP didn't say that. I understood it's the same job but with new terms.

princessdon

The lay off's, short hours and what appears to be a TUPE or buyout situation would make me very wary indeed.

It's probably nothing to worry about - but given the negative terms personally I'd prefer an effective date for that contract. Otherwise he would have NO proof that the changes didn't happen prior if for eg a redundancy situation occured.

At the very least I'd sign on their signed copy and get them to sign to the effect on mine, but I am a worrier and prefer to have every thing just so.