Restrictive Covenant in Updated Terms and Conditions

sh856531

sangie595 wrote: »

If they enforce the new conditions there is no notice pay and no redundancy pay. They would tell you that you must accept them by a certain date - that would be your notice. If you don't accept them, then that is your employment over and done.

Are you absolutely certain about this?

My contract basically says in very unambiguous terms, if employment is terminated for any reason *other than gross misconduct*, the employer must give 3 months notice.

Clearly having an honest disagreement about modifying terms is not gross misconduct, therefore its hard to see how that part of the existing contract would not be in effect.

Either that or we are saying that an employer can just unilaterally decide to change your terms and completely ignore the obligations they entered into in the original contract.

Cheers

Guest101

sangie595 wrote: »

I wouldn't discount the OP's knowledge of the employer. There actually are real cases of employers threatening to sue new employers for taking staff bound by restrictive covenants. And the OP is right - although the likelihood of it happening is slim, many employers back off, especially if the threat is from a big and powerful company. There are always less risky choices of employees.

But why would you want to work for somewhere who don't grasp the basics of contract law?

Guest101

sh856531 wrote: »

Are you absolutely certain about this?

My contract basically says in very unambiguous terms, if employment is terminated for any reason *other than gross misconduct*, the employer must give 3 months notice.

Clearly having an honest disagreement about modifying terms is not gross misconduct, therefore its hard to see how that part of the existing contract would not be in effect.

Either that or we are saying that an employer can just unilaterally decide to change your terms and completely ignore the obligations they entered into in the original contract.

Cheers

Just out of curiosity how long have u been there?

sh856531

sangie595 wrote: »

Cross posted - but yes, I have seen it happen. I have also seen people end up with no job having resigned before the threat is made, and then they are stuck with no job at all

That's exactly the scenario I've seen as well (and hence want to avoid myself)

sh856531

Guest101 wrote: »

Sorry but why would you want to work for somewhere that fails to understand the very basics of contract law.

Oh and how have you seen this happen to 3 people in a new term of employment?

I don't know what you mean about not understanding contract law. My employer clearly does understand contract law, and is using it to quite good effect to protect their interests as they see it

I also never said this was a new term of employment or that the 3 people I have in mind were related to this employer.

Guest101

sh856531 wrote: »

I don't know what you mean about not understanding contract law. My employer clearly does understand contract law, and is using it to quite good effect to protect their interests as they see it

I also never said this was a new term of employment or that the 3 people I have in mind were related to this employer.

No, your current employer is using threats to quite good effect, not contract law.

I presumed it was a new term, as you've been asked to sign a new contract / updated terms.

If you've seen it happen before and are concerned, now would be the time to move on surely?

sh856531

Guest101 wrote: »

No, your current employer is using threats to quite good effect, not contract law.

I presumed it was a new term, as you've been asked to sign a new contract / updated terms.

If you've seen it happen before and are concerned, now would be the time to move on surely?

I'm not concerned. As I said - I believe the situation will be resolved amicably. However I like to be well informed before discussing such consequential matters.

As for why I wouldn't just leave there are at least 3 simple reasons
- I like my job
- I get paid fairly well
- Despite their overzealous legal council, I actually like my employer

I'm just one of those awkward types who actually reads contracts before signing them!

sangie595

sh856531 wrote: »

Are you absolutely certain about this?

My contract basically says in very unambiguous terms, if employment is terminated for any reason *other than gross misconduct*, the employer must give 3 months notice.

Clearly having an honest disagreement about modifying terms is not gross misconduct, therefore its hard to see how that part of the existing contract would not be in effect.

Either that or we are saying that an employer can just unilaterally decide to change your terms and completely ignore the obligations they entered into in the original contract.

Cheers

Positive. Although you may not have understood how it works. If you notice period is three months, they give you three months notice. Then offer you the new contract to start the day after. You either agree and sign, or turn up to work the next day, or your job is terminated. Changing a contract instantaneously is hard - unilaterally is easy.

Guest101 wrote: »

But why would you want to work for somewhere who don't grasp the basics of contract law?

If employers (or anyone, else for that matter) only did things when they had a complete grasp of the basics of law, nothing would ever happen! Lawyers and courts are busy because nigh on nobody has a complete grasp of the law! Or even, in some cases, an intention to follow it. After all, everybody knows what speed restrictions are, so utterly no driver ever speeds - do they?

I do agree with the OP here though. The employers intent is not to worry about whether they can enforce it. Their intent is to bluff and bluster enough to make other employers back off. And it does work, especially if the employer is a powerful / influential business. Much as it is nice to consider oneself the only possible appointee, the fact is that there will be plenty of people as good as you or near enough who don't come with such "encumberances".

Remember the days when employment tribunals were free to make a claim? How many times did you see posters on these kinds of boards, or even people advising on these kinds of boards, saying that making a claim which had absolutely no chance of succeeding was worth it because it would force the employer to offer a settlement rather than have to incur the costs of a tribunal? That was also a bluff that often worked - tribunal fees were, in large part, brought about by people doing exactly this!

sh856531 wrote: »

I'm just one of those awkward types who actually reads contracts before signing them!

Something too few people do, in my experience. And they should.

comeandgo

I don't think this is enforceable. If the restriction was reasonable, i.e. No employer within 30 miles then that would be but to say the whole of the U.K. Is unreasonable. I think there is case law on this but can't remember it at the moment.

sh856531

Positive. Although you may not have understood how it works. If you notice period is three months, they give you three months notice

That's fine. Although I'm not gunning for a termination(!) I'd far rather get 3 months paid notice and the freedom to work anywhere in the UK, than sign a deal that says I can't feed my family for 6 months. A horrible way to need to think about things, but I wasn't the one who requested the change.