New work contract. Issues I need answering.

elsien

Richie_C wrote: »

Short-Time Working and Lay Off

The company reserves the right to introduce short time working or a period of temporary lay off without (with the exception of any statutory entitlement) where this is necessary to avoid redundancies, where work can't be performed due to exceptional circumstances, or where there is a shortage of work.

.

This one seems to be becoming more common for smaller firms that don't have their own HR departments and use the draft contracts drawn up by hired in employment companies.
I had the same on a recent draft contract for a job I was applying for - I queried it but they weren't willing to negotiate. I was told that if they follow the employment advice and check everything HR related through them before acting, the small business costs are covered if an employee tries to go to tribunal etc. So they stick to the standard contract that is issued, even the uneccessary bits.

FWIW, my querying that and other bits of the contract meant I didn't get the job.

Richie_C

So i'm guessing from the looks of it I try to renegotiate or turn down the pay rise and keep my current contract where none of the issues above apply as they aren't in my current contract.

ohreally

Richie_C wrote: »

I'm going to go in tomorrow and try and negotiate a change. If one cant be met I just wont take the pay rise. £2k isn't enough to for me to ruin my career and not be able to work for any company in a 20 mile radius.

Its unlikely to be as simple as that, you may find they simply force their will upon you and make a unilateral change to your contract - are you up for that?

ohreally

Richie_C wrote: »

This says to me I can turn up for work one day and be sent home or have my hours cut without any prior notice if there isnt enough work in the studio.

Sec 28, 1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/part/III (may be applicable).

Richie_C

Well if they do that ill hold out until then. But I'm not destroying my chances of moving to a different job by signing this contract. Who in their right mind would?

Richie_C

ohreally wrote: »

Sec 28, 1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/part/III (may be applicable).

Im sorry I dont speak lawyer. What does that mean?

Another_not_new_user

suicidebob wrote: »

20 miles is completely unreasonable, and this is almost certainly unenforceable.

I presume that you will be providing legal indemnity for anyone following your utterly ridiculous advice? Twenty miles is quite definitely almost certainly reasonable. To consider it any other way would be "suicide". Or is that the point of advising someone in such a fashion?

Richie_C wrote: »

Im sorry I dont speak lawyer. What does that mean?

In short it means that you MIGHT get guaranteed pay, if you qualified for it, in the circumstances that you queried. And you also might not too. It is relatively easy to lay someone off without pay or reduce their working week, provided the employer observes a few "niceties", even without such a clause. But you cross that bridge when and if you come to it. Just as you would have to with whatever may be the fallout of a decision to sign or not sign. As you have been advised, it could be that the new contract could be enforced and without any extra pay. But until the employer attempts to do that, you don't have anything to go on but where you are now.


Equally, you may wish to reconsider your future with the company around about now. If they are seeking to introduce these clauses, one might wonder why? It may simply be a standard overhaul. But it may not be too.

suicidebob

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

I presume that you will be providing legal indemnity for anyone following your utterly ridiculous advice? Twenty miles is quite definitely almost certainly reasonable. To consider it any other way would be "suicide". Or is that the point of advising someone in such a fashion?

It's not legal advice.

And I'm not sure 'quite definitely almost certainly reasonable' qualifies as advice of any sort. Speak English.

For a 20 mile exclusion clause to be upheld the employer would need to show that ALL his clients are located within that distance, and that every potential client in that area uses his service.

If there's 2 similar companies occupying similar segments of the market, chasing the same clients, then any exclusion clause is pretty much a dead duck.

ALternatively, If you can show any case law supporting your 20 mile claim as reasonable that would be great.

Another_not_new_user

suicidebob wrote: »

It's not legal advice.

And I'm not sure 'quite definitely almost certainly reasonable' qualifies as advice of any sort. Speak English.

For a 20 mile exclusion clause to be upheld the employer would need to show that ALL his clients are located within that distance, and that every potential client in that area uses his service.

If there's 2 similar companies occupying similar segments of the market, chasing the same clients, then any exclusion clause is pretty much a dead duck.

ALternatively, If you can show any case law supporting your 20 mile claim as reasonable that would be great.

Since I do not presume to give equivocal answers which only fall in the purview of a court, unlike you I can only say what may be reasonable - and 20 miles is definitely within the definition.


I am interested in the middle two paragraphs - I would like to see case law - or indeed ANY law that upholds your position.


Try googling Heathrow and restrictive covenants. I don't have time to dig out precedents for you. But as anyone with knowledge of restrictive covenants knows, there is one particular case in which a redundant worker had a restrictive covenant which prevented him from working with any competitor within a 30 mile radius. Want to guess the distance between Gatwick, Luton and Heathrow? And he lost the case. His important job? Air freight handler.


It is wildly optimistic to think you can replace a courts judgement with your own. And suicidal to take advice as definitive based on the meaningless assertion of a stranger on the internet. I am not going to say it is enforceable. That is for a court to say if it comes to a case. I am simply going to point out that restrictive covenants ARE enforceable, that limiting the terms of them in the way this one does makes them much more enforceable, and that simply taking the risk and signing one based on an assertion on an anonymous internet site that it is DEFINITELY not enforceable is foolish.


Not even a lawyer could DEFINITELY anticipate the decision of a court. That is why they give opinions and not certainties. What makes you think you can?

suicidebob

I googled Heathrow and restrictive covenants. Nothing. I don't believe the case you're referring to ever existed.