Employment contract question

skintmacflint

My Son In Law's firm whom he's been with for 5 years full time, has been bought over recently.

He';sbeen given a new employment contract to sign and has a question on one of the new conditions.

It says

You shall not, whilst employed under this Agreement, engage in any activity outside of working hours which may have a negative impact on your ability to carry out your duties as an amployee of the company. It will be for the company to determine whether such an activity will have such a negative effect.

He works with his hands, so appreciate they might not want an employee out boxing in his spare time in case of regualr injury , time off. But the wording is a bit vague. Could be taken to mean he's not to do any DIY at home without his company's permission in case he hits his finger with a hammer?

Can anyone advise if this is an excessive or legal condition in these modern times?

KiKi

It's not a legal condition, but I don't think they're telling him not to undertake DIY or boxing. Otherwise equally they could say any winter sport like ski-ing is just as risky. It sounds more like things like drinking (then turning up at work to be under the influence), or losing your licence if you're a driver, for example.

Ask him to check - I think he's over-interpreting, but it's worth clarifying what sort of things the company believes could negatively impact his work. If it hinders his every day life, then it may be seen as an unreasonable term of his contract, but only an Employment Tribunal could determine if that was the case, and you don't want to go there.

Make sure he gets this in writing, and so ask him to email his manager.

HTH
KiKi

ohreally

skintmacflint wrote: »

You shall not, whilst employed under this Agreement, engage in any activity outside of working hours which may have a negative impact on your ability to carry out your duties as an amployee of the company. It will be for the company to determine whether such an activity will have such a negative effect

The employer appoints its-self judge, jury and executioner!

This is far too ambiguous and requires clarification over the activities they consider inappropriate, as it stands this is encroaching into an individuals personal life

getmore4less

What else is changing, why do they need new contracts.

check carefully especialy for changes in mobility clauses

Was it a full takeover or a TUPE.

How many people involvesd might need consultation and reps/union

If they enforce this then everyone should get together and start listing everything they do and ask for permission one issue at a time.

is it ok to ride my bike to the shops.
I take my children to school is this OK...


I think they are more concered about extra work/commitments that make you unfit/less fit to work.

skintmacflint

Not sure if its TUPE but probably is. Company he worked for's been bought over and moved to the new business premises along with all its staff, tools and equipment.

The new firm bought this one which only has 5 workers, so they could widen their capabilities and sell a complete start to finish service. But SIL's orig co name is still in place AFAIK.

Seems for 5 years he's never had an employment contract, and now he's been given this one to sign.

It also says he can't do any other work in his spare time unpaid or not without the company's agreement. He's done 8 hours voluntary work for past 3 years.

For a 50 year old man who up 10 years ago( due to firms going under he's had to move twice) he's always worked in more traditional bigger companies and this just seems a bit personally invasive.

He's a hard reliable worker, never off and always been well respected an appreciated anywhere he's been. Was offered another job recently on the recommendation of others but daily travel was too far.

Had to laugh when he said contract's also got a bit about the firm don't need to ever increase his wage but can do if they want to! Like thousands of others he's not had a pay rise in 3 years!

He's also been told it doesn't matter whether he signs the new contact or not, the fact they gave him it means it's treated as if he's signed it.

LittleVoice

skintmacflint wrote: »

Not sure if its TUPE but probably is. Company he worked for's been bought over and moved to the new business premises along with all its staff, tools and equipment. I would suggest that IF the company was bought, he was employed by the company, and continued to work, then he has continued to be employed by that company.

The new firm bought this one which only has 5 workers, so they could widen their capabilities and sell a complete start to finish service. But SIL's orig co name is still in place AFAIK. So seems not TUPE, the company is still trading. Check Companies House website register.

Seems for 5 years he's never had an employment contract, and now he's been given this one to sign. The one he was working to before the company was sold on would still be operational.

It also says he can't do any other work in his spare time unpaid or not without the company's agreement. He's done 8 hours voluntary work for past 3 years. So he just tells them that he has been doing that voluntary work. As it has not adversely affected his paid work in that time, there is no reasonable reason to refuse permission. They may also be concerned about working time regulations - has he signed an opt-out?

For a 50 year old man who up 10 years ago( due to firms going under he's had to move twice) he's always worked in more traditional bigger companies and this just seems a bit personally invasive. May just be a sign of the times rather than company size.

He's a hard reliable worker, never off and always been well respected an appreciated anywhere he's been. Was offered another job recently on the recommendation of others but daily travel was too far.

Had to laugh when he said contract's also got a bit about the firm don't need to ever increase his wage but can do if they want to! Like thousands of others he's not had a pay rise in 3 years! They are just clarifying as some people may have believed their contract mentioned annual salary reviews and they thought that meant annual salary increases.

He's also been told it doesn't matter whether he signs the new contact or not, the fact they gave him it means it's treated as if he's signed it. If they provide written particulars (which is what this probably amounts to) and he continues to work for them without protesting about it then he would be deemed to be working to those contract terms.

...................

Uncertain

skintmacflint wrote: »

He's also been told it doesn't matter whether he signs the new contact or not, the fact they gave him it means it's treated as if he's signed it.

Yes, with an employment contract the fact that you turn up, work and they pay is sufficient to form the contract.

If there is a clause you are not prepared to agree to (obviously providing it does not restrict your basic legal rights which would make it unlawful) you need to specifically reject that clause and actively negotiate. Just not signing is not sufficient.

sunflower_2

my employer has a similar clause in their contracts.

i always took this to mean drugs/alcohol.

Uncertain

sunflower wrote: »

my employer has a similar clause in their contracts.

i always took this to mean drugs/alcohol.

That really is the problem. It is right on the edge, taken literally it could preclude more or less anything (and would only be enforceable up to a point). The problem is you would only find out after being sacked and taking it to a tribunal.

guardianangel

skintmacflint wrote: »

My Son In Law's firm whom he's been with for 5 years full time, has been bought over recently.

He';sbeen given a new employment contract to sign and has a question on one of the new conditions.

It says

You shall not, whilst employed under this Agreement, engage in any activity outside of working hours which may have a negative impact on your ability to carry out your duties as an amployee of the company. It will be for the company to determine whether such an activity will have such a negative effect.

He works with his hands, so appreciate they might not want an employee out boxing in his spare time in case of regualr injury , time off. But the wording is a bit vague. Could be taken to mean he's not to do any DIY at home without his company's permission in case he hits his finger with a hammer?

Can anyone advise if this is an excessive or legal condition in these modern times?

We use that paragraph in a different way, it usually refers to another job. Considering its a law firm, I can only assuming they are referring to advice that your son may give to other people and then say he is working for the company, or if he uses his company name to gain work off the record.

skintmacflint

Thanks everyone for advice and information. I'll pass it onto him at weekend.

Probably is just changes and as said when there's a statement, it can be interpretated as more or less. At his age and considering it's just a skilled job, not anything legal or subject to commercial copyright. He just felt it was a bit personally invasive. The 8 hours voluntary per month is not taxing, and is for a much needed local charity.

I used to do contacts years ago although not in employment so that's why he asked me to read it. But I'm too out of date with things now to have been of any help.

Love this forum . Very helpful, there's so many people who know so many things. thanks again.