Work! an issue.

[Andy3536]

My company has taken it upon themselves to issue new contracts for us all to sign. We've been given the weekend to look them over.

The most annoying change that they are trying to implement is the notice period.
4 weeks notice after a year untill year 4. Where 1 week will be added to the notice period for every year further. So 5 years = 5 weeks and 6 years = 6 weeks. Goes right up untill 12 weeks/12 years.

After a bit of a google i can find info that thats the legal requirment for the employers to give that much notice? But can't seem to find the info for employees. (i'm assuming the legal requirment is going to be 2 or 4?)

I'd assume i could just not sign and my previous contract saying 4 weeks notice will still be fine (having no end date)?

My big problem is that being a low paid job and being semi skilled so i could do better, i really don't want to put myself in a position where i could be telling future prospective employers that i'll have to give 5, 6 weeks notice or worse. They'd just employ someone who could start sooner.

I know i don't have to sign it but it'd be nice to know what you guys think.



There's also a blank spot where my wages are supposed to go in the contract and they expect me to sign it before they fill it in (thats not going to happen though)

[0iD]

I'm not big on employment law, but I always thought notice was a month for monthly paid & a week for weekly paid. Having said that, I have heard of such clauses being implimented. I would however expect salary to be stated before I signed anything.

Saracen may know. He nose everthang!

[Jay]

they can force you to stick to that if you sign that contract and they may not allow you to work there unless you agree to the contract.

Its a tough one but it is standard practice.

I gave my last place 3 months notice so I could then help interview and hand over to the new member of staff but that was becuase I was able to and liked the people I worked with.

[kalniel]

My company has taken it upon themselves to issue new contracts for us all to sign. We've been given the weekend to look them over.

The most annoying change that they are trying to implement is the notice period.
4 weeks notice after a year untill year 4. Where 1 week will be added to the notice period for every year further. So 5 years = 5 weeks and 6 years = 6 weeks. Goes right up untill 12 weeks/12 years.

After a bit of a google i can find info that thats the legal requirment for the employers to give that much notice? But can't seem to find the info for employees. (i'm assuming the legal requirment is going to be 2 or 4?)

I'd assume i could just not sign and my previous contract saying 4 weeks notice will still be fine (having no end date)?

My big problem is that being a low paid job and being semi skilled so i could do better, i really don't want to put myself in a position where i could be telling future prospective employers that i'll have to give 5, 6 weeks notice or worse. They'd just employ someone who could start sooner.

I know i don't have to sign it but it'd be nice to know what you guys think.

I'm pretty sure there are some jobs where the employer can show good reason to need more than how ever much notice and thus put it in contract. Beyond that I don't know, sorry.

There's also a blank spot where my wages are supposed to go in the contract and they expect me to sign it before they fill it in (thats not going to happen though)

That's easy - fill it in yourself and get a million pounds salary

[Andy3536]

they can force you to stick to that if you sign that contract and they may not allow you to work there unless you agree to the contract.

Its a tough one but it is standard practice.

I gave my last place 3 months notice so I could then help interview and hand over to the new member of staff but that was becuase I was able to and liked the people I worked with.

I don't tink there's a danger of them not alowing us to work there anymore, the majority of the people there will not be signing the contract.
If it were a job that was uniqe and i needed to train someone on what i do but i don't. There are many there that could train someone new up.

I'm pretty sure there are some jobs where the employer can show good reason to need more than how ever much notice and thus put it in contract. Beyond that I don't know, sorry.

That's easy - fill it in yourself and get a million pounds salary

I could understand that if i were a senior manager or a highly skilled job on good pay, i'd be happy to sign then. But i'm not.
It's not a difficult job, many people just use it as a stepping stone to another job. Which is what i think the're trying to prevent without having to give us pay rises.
I could put a million pounds in as the salery, then sign it as Maggie Thatcher, see what they say.......

[Jay]

you can legally cross out the areas you don't agree with, initial the changes then sign it.

[Saracen]

There is no categoric answer to your dilemma.

If you refuse to sign, an employer might terminate your contract. If they do, there's a good chance a tribunal would deem it unfair, but it is not a certainty.

A lot will depend on what the variations in the contract are about (i.e. what the old one said and what the new one says). It would also depend on why the employer wanted to change it. It might be, for instance, that there is a very good business reason for making a change, and that it could be something that if it were done capriciously or without good reason, would result in a tribunal deciding that terminating the contract was unfair dismissal, but if the company can justify to the tribunal why the change was necessary, then they would rule it fair.

From what I'm being told, there's a good chance such a case would go in your favour, but it is not a certainty.

Oh, and if any future employer finds out you took the last one to a tribunal, well, fair or not, that WILL cost you a job offer with some firms. I state that as a fact, because I know of firms that have done it. Their attitude is .... "why risk it? He might have had a good reason,but might just be a trouble-maker". And at that point, you get binned. It's not fair, and may not be legal .... but try proving it.

So .... do you have to sign it? No, as far as I'm aware, you don't.

But, contract changes can also become effective if the firm seek to put it in place and you work under the new terms without objection. So if you are really determined to not agree, either put it in writing, or cross out the bits of the new contract you don't agree to, sign it and then for pities sake, KEEP COPIES.

But .... if you don't sign it, you might end up fired, you might lose any industrial tribubal, you might end up marked as a troublemaker even if you aren't fired, and you might be putting future employment opportunities (and references) at risk.

So, decide if it's a fight you're prepared to pick. Is the issue important enough?

Oh, and I've been in almost exactly that situation, and refused to sign. The differences with me were that the implications of the changes were potentially vastly more significant, and I would NOT have carried on working under the terms terms. I'd have walked. And, it was a contract for ad-hoc contract work, not employment, so a tribunal wasn't an option anyway.

One last point. All the above is personal OPINION, not advice. I'm not qualified to give legal advice .... and if I was, you'd be getting a nice, large bill attached.

But I'll give one free piece of advice .... if you want legal advice you can rely on, get it from a qualified lawyer, and preferably one with an employment law specialisation, not from a forum.

I know you're after opinions, not advice here, but just the same, do NOT treat my opinion or anyone else's here as gospel when your job and prospects, especially in the current climate, may depend on it.

[Andy3536]

you can legally cross out the areas you don't agree with, initial the changes then sign it.

There's alot to change, there's also no mention in the contract of the additional holiday intitlement after 2 years service.
There's also a restricted business clause that seems to indicate that i'm not aloud to for a year work in a similar business? It's worded specificly to be confusing though and it's somthing i'll ask about Monday.
It mabee just to do with thier existing customers but there's already another paragragh that seems to say that but from a different perspective.
I'll find out more on that monday though.

[Andy3536]

There is no categoric answer to your dilemma.

If you refuse to sign, an employer might terminate your contract. If they do, there's a good chance a tribunal would deem it unfair, but it is not a certainty.

A lot will depend on what the variations in the contract are about (i.e. what the old one said and what the new one says). It would also depend on why the employer wanted to change it. It might be, for instance, that there is a very good business reason for making a change, and that it could be something that if it were done capriciously or without good reason, would result in a tribunal deciding that terminating the contract was unfair dismissal, but if the company can justify to the tribunal why the change was necessary, then they would rule it fair.

From what I'm being told, there's a good chance such a case would go in your favour, but it is not a certainty.

Oh, and if any future employer finds out you took the last one to a tribunal, well, fair or not, that WILL cost you a job offer with some firms. I state that as a fact, because I know of firms that have done it. Their attitude is .... "why risk it? He might have had a good reason,but might just be a trouble-maker". And at that point, you get binned. It's not fair, and may not be legal .... but try proving it.

So .... do you have to sign it? No, as far as I'm aware, you don't.

But, contract changes can also become effective if the firm seek to put it in place and you work under the new terms without objection. So if you are really determined to not agree, either put it in writing, or cross out the bits of the new contract you don't agree to, sign it and then for pities sake, KEEP COPIES.

But .... if you don't sign it, you might end up fired, you might lose any industrial tribubal, you might end up marked as a troublemaker even if you aren't fired, and you might be putting future employment opportunities (and references) at risk.

So, decide if it's a fight you're prepared to pick. Is the issue important enough?

Oh, and I've been in almost exactly that situation, and refused to sign. The differences with me were that the implications of the changes were potentially vastly more significant, and I would NOT have carried on working under the terms terms. I'd have walked. And, it was a contract for ad-hoc contract work, not employment, so a tribunal wasn't an option anyway.

One last point. All the above is personal OPINION, not advice. I'm not qualified to give legal advice .... and if I was, you'd be getting a nice, large bill attached.

But I'll give one free piece of advice .... if you want legal advice you can rely on, get it from a qualified lawyer, and preferably one with an employment law specialisation, not from a forum.

I know you're after opinions, not advice here, but just the same, do NOT treat my opinion or anyone else's here as gospel when your job and prospects, especially in the current climate, may depend on it.

I do apreciate all the opinions so far.

It's unlikely a tribunal or sacking will take place due to the high number of staff not going to sign. But it's not great pay so if they dismiss me it won't be the biggest loss.
I am currently employed for the sake of employment and not doing a job i enjoy or putting my qualifications to good use.

It's not a position i've been in before, so knowing what to expect from those that have done it or know is always helpfull.

[Jay]

It sounds a little over the top, I would get some propper advice on this if I was you.

[Barakka]

Also don't forget in these uncertain economic times a 12 week notice period is not always a bad thing, yes you would have to give them 3 months notice, but the same applies in reverse, in order to let you go they would have to give you 3 months notice or 3 months pay. I was happy to sign my ammendment to 3 months notice and no-one I know who has left has been made to work the full 3 months. Often employers put this in just to make sure you're not leaving before they've even interviewed for your replacement, and have time to document anything you need to.

Obviously only opinion and depends entirely on your specific situation, although I would say only giving you the weekend when the CAB will be shut to think about it is a tad unfair.

[Andy3536]

Also don't forget in these uncertain economic times a 12 week notice period is not always a bad thing, yes you would have to give them 3 months notice, but the same applies in reverse, in order to let you go they would have to give you 3 months notice or 3 months pay. I was happy to sign my ammendment to 3 months notice and no-one I know who has left has been made to work the full 3 months. Often employers put this in just to make sure you're not leaving before they've even interviewed for your replacement, and have time to document anything you need to.

Obviously only opinion and depends entirely on your specific situation, although I would say only giving you the weekend when the CAB will be shut to think about it is a tad unfair.

From what i've been seeing on the interweb, those are the legal requirments of the employer anyway.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employme...ob/DG_10026689

I'd assume it's still upto date info?
There's loads of sites that list the legal reqiurments for employers but not so much for employees.
Although it does say legal requirment of 1 week in the link. But as i'm contracted to 4 already i guess i'll try and make them stick to this.

[jamin]

In the 12 years I have been with (the various incarnations of the) same company, I have had my terms of employment in contract from, which changed to having them in a blanket company handbook and then back to contract form. Any changes to the terms/contract were and still are offered to staff to accept initally. But in the event of non acceptance the changes are enforced automatically after 30 days.

I'm not sure this totally relates to your situation but I hope it highlights the flexibility employers have in these matters.

[Andy3536]

In the 12 years I have been with (the various incarnations of the) same company, I have had my terms of employment in contract from, which changed to having them in a blanket company handbook and then back to contract form. Any changes to the terms/contract were and still are offered to staff to accept initally. But in the event of non acceptance the changes are enforced automatically after 30 days.

I'm not sure this totally relates to your situation but I hope it highlights the flexibility employers have in these matters.

Thats comforting, it's also become clear that for 12 months after i leave i wouldn't be able have employment in anything similar.

Not sure on the legality of how it was proposed, my boss said if i were to sign it the extended notice period would also apply to them making me redundant. But thats what they have to do by law anyway.
I just don't know how they think they can get anybody to sign it.

[jamin]

Holy crap! Do you have a union?

[TheAnimus]

Thats comforting, it's also become clear that for 12 months after i leave i wouldn't be able have employment in anything similar.

Not sure on the legality of how it was proposed, my boss said if i were to sign it the extended notice period would also apply to them making me redundant. But thats what they have to do by law anyway.
I just don't know how they think they can get anybody to sign it.

F**King hell!

I design bespoke software for trade finding, as such i'm very familiar with the way the fund is positioned in the market shall we say. But, my contract merely states that i have to serve 3 months from my resignation, which they will almost certainly expect me to garden out the last month so i don't give away any secrets (if they can't the whole 3 months). That i thought was draconian.