How important are contract terms over verbal terms?

cj_

As per the title really, would you let this concern you?

Been offered a role where the contract is quite 'aggressive' in some ways - there are clauses for almost every facet except salary.   That is, there are clauses for hours (can be changed, or increased, without compensation, where required) and location (clauses to ask you to work on-site anywhere in the UK, or with some notice, abroad).  It's very heavily titled toward the employer.  

I've been verbally advised that none of that would be likely to happen, so not to worry about it - but it's a contract, right?  Despite the verbal, I've been told the written contract will not be changed, and just to trust them on it.  They've spoken about all these terms like they're the most normal things in the world, and everyone has the same contract regardless of job title (again, found this odd) but I've never had a job with a contract with them in before - and it's not my first rodeo.

Is it normal?  My instinct is one of suspicion.

MalMonroe

With verbal agreements, there is no proof. Whatsoever. I guess conversations could be recorded but who's to say who is who if anyone ever listens to them?

Whereas with written agreements - obviously there is solid proof of what was agreed.

If you sign a contract, you are agreeing to everything that's in there. It's in writing and it's official. If you have any objections, they'll just say "well, you signed up to do that when you first came here" - or something similar.

I think your instinct is right - and I'd be suspicious, too. 

General_Grant

cj_ said:

As per the title really, would you let this concern you?

Been offered a role where the contract is quite 'aggressive' in some ways - there are clauses for almost every facet except salary.   That is, there are clauses for hours (can be changed, or increased, without compensation, where required) and location (clauses to ask you to work on-site anywhere in the UK, or with some notice, abroad).  It's very heavily titled toward the employer.  

I've been verbally advised that none of that would be likely to happen, so not to worry about it - but it's a contract, right?  Despite the verbal, I've been told the written contract will not be changed, and just to trust them on it.  They've spoken about all these terms like they're the most normal things in the world, and everyone has the same contract regardless of job title (again, found this odd) but I've never had a job with a contract with them in before - and it's not my first rodeo.

Is it normal?  My instinct is one of suspicion.

An employment contract is not just a document headed "Contract" - for example it may be that some conditons are included in a staff handbook or oral (often described as "verbal"). 

There are some terms which have to be provided in writing and that includes the amount of pay.

Proving verbal contract terms is difficult, especially when you have written terms which contradict them.

You mention changes in hours being allowed without compensation.  Of course that would not be lawful if it were to take pay below the national living wage.

What sort of work are you being employed to do?  Would you expect to have to work anywhere in the normal course when working for another employer?

cj_

MalMonroe said:

With verbal agreements, there is no proof. Whatsoever. I guess conversations could be recorded but who's to say who is who if anyone ever listens to them?

Whereas with written agreements - obviously there is solid proof of what was agreed.

If you sign a contract, you are agreeing to everything that's in there. It's in writing and it's official. If you have any objections, they'll just say "well, you signed up to do that when you first came here" - or something similar.

I think your instinct is right - and I'd be suspicious, too. 

This is roughly what I was thinking.  They've offered reassurances, but some of it is caveated by 'very rarely', rather than 'will never happen'.

My main argument is "if it's not needed, why's it there?".  The people I've spoken to during the interview process seem nice, but it makes me weary of the employer because of those terms.

Sandtree

Written and verbal contracts have equal weight in the eyes of the law however the issue is proving what were the clauses of the verbal contract. 

Not being likely to happen does mean they can happen. If they have 20,000 employees and its just you that gets sent around the country every other  day it'd still be unlikely to happen but won't make you feel any better.

Haven't been an employee for a decade but all my contracts had clauses saying that hours are based on business needs, location is as required (no comment to say about any notice for overseas etc). It really depends on where you are with your career and what your job is. In my line of work I know hours can at times be long or outside of UK working hours, that I can need to travel at short/no notice etc but that's reflected in the salary. One of those employers I'd previously been a call centre agent for and the terms were identical but I knew my department was open 8-6 Mon-Sat so clearly won't be Sunday or Night shifts plus not going to be able to work well when not in the call centre and away from my files so that won't be happening much.

I wouldn't be "suspicious" but would have clarified the situation and be comfortable the salary is sufficient compensation for the working practices.

cj_

General_Grant said:

cj_ said:

As per the title really, would you let this concern you?

Been offered a role where the contract is quite 'aggressive' in some ways - there are clauses for almost every facet except salary.   That is, there are clauses for hours (can be changed, or increased, without compensation, where required) and location (clauses to ask you to work on-site anywhere in the UK, or with some notice, abroad).  It's very heavily titled toward the employer.  

I've been verbally advised that none of that would be likely to happen, so not to worry about it - but it's a contract, right?  Despite the verbal, I've been told the written contract will not be changed, and just to trust them on it.  They've spoken about all these terms like they're the most normal things in the world, and everyone has the same contract regardless of job title (again, found this odd) but I've never had a job with a contract with them in before - and it's not my first rodeo.

Is it normal?  My instinct is one of suspicion.

An employment contract is not just a document headed "Contract" - for example it may be that some conditons are included in a staff handbook or oral (often described as "verbal"). 

There are some terms which have to be provided in writing and that includes the amount of pay.

Proving verbal contract terms is difficult, especially when you have written terms which contradict them.

You mention changes in hours being allowed without compensation.  Of course that would not be lawful if it were to take pay below the national living wage.

What sort of work are you being employed to do?  Would you expect to have to work anywhere in the normal course when working for another employer?

It's professional IT work well above NMW, but absolutely nothing where you'd reasonably 'expect' to be mobile or customer facing, but that isn't to say that some companies can force that on their employees.

As I said, I've not had that clause in a contract before - just the usual "here's your POW, and we might need to change it if circumstances arise"

oh_really

The principle statement of the written particulars must contain details of salary and specify how often it's paid.

If your unsure of  contractual elements ask for them to remove, especially if the employer claims they won't be enforced anyway.

cj_

oh_really said:

The principle statement of the written particulars must contain details of salary and specify how often it's paid.

If your unsure of  contractual elements ask for them to remove, especially if the employer claims they won't be enforced anyway.

I've already been told that they won't change them - they can only offer 'reassurance'

oh_really

Next steps will come down to your acceptance or otherwise then.

Are you content to walk and keep looking? I admit when it comes to employers, I don't have an abundance of trust.

Sandtree

cj_ said:
My main argument is "if it's not needed, why's it there?".  The people I've spoken to during the interview process seem nice, but it makes me weary of the employer because of those terms.

Because for a company it is an absolute pain in the rear end to have different employees on different contractual terms. 

Have one set of terms that is suitable at the lowest common demoninator or maybe 3 - workers, managers, directors - but thats it. Each time you want to change something or do something its massively more complex if you have to check the contracts of all 400 impacted staff individually rather than 1 or 2 standard terms.

This is why almost as soon as a company is bought out they attempt to harmonise terms and all pressures that can legally be applied are to encourage them to adopt the new terms even if the movement is neutral or an improvement.

A former colleague managed to get 3 months salary for the company making a mistake and using the wrong contract template which meant his probation was automatically ended at 6 months  rather than having to be "passed"... he played the terms and they had to give him 3 months notice rather than the 1 week during probation 

Marcon

cj_ said:

oh_really said:

The principle statement of the written particulars must contain details of salary and specify how often it's paid.

If your unsure of  contractual elements ask for them to remove, especially if the employer claims they won't be enforced anyway.

I've already been told that they won't change them - they can only offer 'reassurance'

...and that 'reassurance' will be worthless once you've signed the contract.