Employment contract wording

rickyroma

I have been offered a new job and have just been sent an employment contract to read. The terms and conditions on the contract are pretty poor to be honest so I don't feel I can sign unless most of these points are altered. Even if they are changed, I feel this is all irrelevant anyway due to the last clause...
"the company reserves the right to make ANY reasonable changes to ANY of the terms and conditions of employment"

Seems to me it makes the whole contract pointless as any part of it can be changed at any point in the future.  I understand this is a "variation clause" but is this normal for a contract of employment nowadays? 

rickyroma

I can imagine the decision if a change is "reasonable" would be up to the company and not me 🙄

Undervalued

rickyroma said:

I have been offered a new job and have just been sent an employment contract to read. The terms and conditions on the contract are pretty poor to be honest so I don't feel I can sign unless most of these points are altered. Even if they are changed, I feel this is all irrelevant anyway due to the last clause...
"the company reserves the right to make ANY reasonable changes to ANY of the terms and conditions of employment"

Seems to me it makes the whole contract pointless as any part of it can be changed at any point in the future.  I understand this is a "variation clause" but is this normal for a contract of employment nowadays? 

Ever without that term it is very easy for an employer to make changes to employee's contracts. Business needs are not set in stone, needs change and jobs evolve.

rickyroma

Undervalued said:

rickyroma said:

I have been offered a new job and have just been sent an employment contract to read. The terms and conditions on the contract are pretty poor to be honest so I don't feel I can sign unless most of these points are altered. Even if they are changed, I feel this is all irrelevant anyway due to the last clause...
"the company reserves the right to make ANY reasonable changes to ANY of the terms and conditions of employment"

Seems to me it makes the whole contract pointless as any part of it can be changed at any point in the future.  I understand this is a "variation clause" but is this normal for a contract of employment nowadays? 

Ever without that term it is very easy for an employer to make changes to employee's contracts. Business needs are not set in stone, needs change and jobs evolve.

Not doubting your info but this is on the government website although I imagine a variation clause would bypass this ruling:

Employers

You must get an employee’s agreement if you want to make changes to their contract.

Brie

rickyroma said:

You must get an employee’s agreement if you want to make changes to their contract.

Yes they have to get the employee's agreement.  But if an employee doesn't agree it basically means they are quitting their job.

So to illustrate - I started a job and knew it meant having to work some bank holidays.  That was fine as the T&Cs stated I'd be paid double time and also get a day off.  Lovely.  Six months later they changed that to double time OR a day off.  Not so lovely. 

It effected a couple hundred people in a large department so they were being fair about it in one sense.  No one liked it but I don't think anyone left because of it.  The fact that no one quit meant we had agreed to the change.

maman

It can help if you're with a fairly large, unionised employer where proposed changes have a reasonable chance of changes being  scrutinised and genuinely agreed. 

itsthelittlethings

If you can, run like the wind. I’m guessing there are more red flags in there?

DullGreyGuy

rickyroma said:

Undervalued said:

rickyroma said:

I have been offered a new job and have just been sent an employment contract to read. The terms and conditions on the contract are pretty poor to be honest so I don't feel I can sign unless most of these points are altered. Even if they are changed, I feel this is all irrelevant anyway due to the last clause...
"the company reserves the right to make ANY reasonable changes to ANY of the terms and conditions of employment"

Seems to me it makes the whole contract pointless as any part of it can be changed at any point in the future.  I understand this is a "variation clause" but is this normal for a contract of employment nowadays? 

Ever without that term it is very easy for an employer to make changes to employee's contracts. Business needs are not set in stone, needs change and jobs evolve.

Not doubting your info but this is on the government website although I imagine a variation clause would bypass this ruling:

Employers

You must get an employee’s agreement if you want to make changes to their contract.

As has been said, it's easy to get changes through even without such terms. Most people's contracts make bonuses and pay rises discretionary so its easy for an employer to point out that those that dont accept the changes will find that discretion is used not to give them any bonus or pay rise... tends to do the trick very quickly 

Undervalued

rickyroma said:

Undervalued said:

rickyroma said:

I have been offered a new job and have just been sent an employment contract to read. The terms and conditions on the contract are pretty poor to be honest so I don't feel I can sign unless most of these points are altered. Even if they are changed, I feel this is all irrelevant anyway due to the last clause...
"the company reserves the right to make ANY reasonable changes to ANY of the terms and conditions of employment"

Seems to me it makes the whole contract pointless as any part of it can be changed at any point in the future.  I understand this is a "variation clause" but is this normal for a contract of employment nowadays? 

Ever without that term it is very easy for an employer to make changes to employee's contracts. Business needs are not set in stone, needs change and jobs evolve.

Not doubting your info but this is on the government website although I imagine a variation clause would bypass this ruling:

Employers

You must get an employee’s agreement if you want to make changes to their contract.

Yes and no - but mainly no in practice if done properly!

Ultimately an employer can impose a new contract leaving the employee with two choices...

Accept it (which happens by default unless the employee positively rejects it)

or

Resign and claim unfair dismissal (not constructive dismissal under such circumstances despite the resignation).

An employment tribunal would then decide if the changes are necessary and reasonable. If not the employee would get some compensation but would still be without a job.

EnPointe

rickyroma said:

I have been offered a new job and have just been sent an employment contract to read. The terms and conditions on the contract are pretty poor to be honest so I don't feel I can sign unless most of these points are altered. Even if they are changed, I feel this is all irrelevant anyway due to the last clause...
"the company reserves the right to make ANY reasonable changes to ANY of the terms and conditions of employment"

Seems to me it makes the whole contract pointless as any part of it can be changed at any point in the future.  I understand this is a "variation clause" but is this normal for a contract of employment nowadays? 

1.  the contract cannot  make illegal things legal  ( as US companies often learn to their cost when they come to the UK or Europe) 
2. Yes this is a very  standard term in many contracts , you of course have the option to reject  it now or  rejact later changes , in both cases there is no obligation to be compensated.

EnPointe

Brie said:

rickyroma said:

You must get an employee’s agreement if you want to make changes to their contract.

Yes they have to get the employee's agreement.  But if an employee doesn't agree it basically means they are quitting their job.

So to illustrate - I started a job and knew it meant having to work some bank holidays.  That was fine as the T&Cs stated I'd be paid double time and also get a day off.  Lovely.  Six months later they changed that to double time OR a day off.  Not so lovely. 

It effected a couple hundred people in a large department so they were being fair about it in one sense.  No one liked it but I don't think anyone left because of it.  The fact that no one quit meant we had agreed to the change.

I think you misunderstand the law, penalty rates  cannot replace  the  legal  requirement for you to get  1.6  weeks of your minimum 5.6 weeks annual leave. 

Some, if not many, of the changes the bpast  deace or so surrounding treatment of  public / bank  Holidays have been the  result of  law surrounding minimum annual leave... 

someo fthe pay + day in lieu rules  existed  from when there was no legal requirment in the UK for annual leave