Odd Employment Contracts

[theguvernor15]

I was chatting to a friend at the weekend who works in a local business, the 'employer' was giving all the staff 'new' contracts to sign.
Currently, it's 0 hours contracts, (hospitality style work), 95% of employees are young 16-24 adults, so to them, contracts aren't really all that important, they'd probably sign anything put in front of them, a lot are using it as second jobs/or whilst home from university in holidays etc.
Anyway, their 'new' contracts has a clause in them (whilst still 0 hour), stating that if they leave the business, they're not allowed to work for any other businesses locally of the same trade (hospitality), for up to 1 year.
Now the reason i believe they've done this is, that they don't seem to treat all their staff that well, so the staff generally tend to leave after a few months & just go & work at a similar establishment up the road, or around the local area.
I fully believe they're trying to 'scare' what staff they have into not leaving, as they have previous for this, however, nobody ever does anything about it.
First off is something like that even legal & secondly, is something like that even enforceable?
It makes no odds to me, as i don't work there. nor do any family or close friends, but it seems like a very odd clause to put into a contract for such a throw-away job type?! (minimum wage / unskilled work).

[Gargamel]

Difficult one this.

Whilst it is hugely unlikely one of this would ever go to court, the test at court would likely to be is this reasonable.

Usually a restrictive clause is limited in someway - ie by time (for six months) or within say a reasonable geographic area. Or occasionally by specific name, eg you may not move to a any of these competitors.

Usually this is done to protect IP, commercial knowledge, customers contacts or similar.

In a zero hours contract my guess is that it would fail any reasonable test, and/or the employer would not be able to show consequential loss from the breach of contract, so even if a breach occured, what remedy would be appropriate - have they lost sales/customers as a result of the breach ?

As you say it is likely to be scare tactics, and is in my opinion likely not to succeed. But restrictive clauses do sometimes win if they are deemed reasonable - so a lot depends on the exact wording.


But yes the employer is within their rights to put any old st in the contract, people don't have to sign them and neither does it make those clauses enforceable if they do.

[DJFish]

You can't have your cake and eat it.
I know a few people who work at events, festivals etc....and they all go where the work is, I'm not sure how you can expect company loyalty from people you employ on zero hrs/minimum wage terms and if you were to sue, they've got bugger all anyway because you pay them bugger all.

[xjay1337]

DJFish said:

You can't have your cake and eat it.
I know a few people who work at events, festivals etc....and they all go where the work is, I'm not sure how you can expect company loyalty from people you employ on zero hrs/minimum wage terms and if you were to sue, they've got bugger all anyway because you pay them bugger all.

Exactly.

Very very sly and tttish of the company who came up with it.

Can't say for sure but I don't think it would have much to stand on, until it's tested in court, then you'll never know for sure...

[theguvernor15]

Without a shadow of a doubt the business uses scare tactics on their employees.
Any of them who have something about them use the jobs as stepping stones until they get better full time work, or just get so sick to the back teeth of the way the business treats them that they leave.
They had a max exodus of their unskilled staff, who in the end went to work for other businesses in the area.
(We're talking waiters/waitresses bar-work etc) on minimum wage.
I totally get protecting your businesses interests but it seemed a little excessive putting this in contracts for such menial jobs.
Thanks for the replies though, my thoughts were pretty much what was cast by the others who commented.

[ecs]

Non-competes have to be reasonable, necessary and not for an excessive period of time. I'd categorise putting someone on a 0h contract and issuing them with a non-compete as unreasonable and unnecessary. If you need someone to work for you that badly, give them contracted hours.

[anonymous-user]

I hate exploitative employers trying to dick people over, especially young people working in the gig economy. In many contexts, restrictive covenants are enforceable, but, in the context described, a twelve month non compete sounds excessive. I would happily offer some free advice to the employees if they want any.

[anonymous-user]

It would be interesting to see how the exclusivity in zero hours contracts part of the 'Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015' might apply. I recall it being fairly wide when it was discussed and that is could impact PTRC, but as I don't come across zero hours contracts in my day2day I've not looked at it post coming into force.

No idea if relevant in this case though.

I'd recommend you take up BreadVan's offer - IIRC this is one of his 'chosen specialised subjects'

[davepoth]

wsurfa said:

It would be interesting to see how the exclusivity in zero hours contracts part of the 'Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015' might apply. I recall it being fairly wide when it was discussed and that is could impact PTRC, but as I don't come across zero hours contracts in my day2day I've not looked at it post coming into force.

No idea if relevant in this case though.

I'd recommend you take up BreadVan's offer - IIRC this is one of his 'chosen specialised subjects'

Too right. He's better at lawyering than I am at breathing.

[craigjm]

There is no way such a clause would be seen as reasonable if challenged.

[anonymous-user]

Kind words, thanks, Dave, but you must have very bad asthma!

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 27th March 22:35

[xjay1337]

Breadvan72 said:

I hate exploitative employers trying to dick people over, especially young people working in the gig economy. In many contexts, restrictive covenants are enforceable, but, in the context described, a twelve month non compete sounds excessive. I would happily offer some free advice to the employees if they want any.

Excellent offer,

Also I seem to recall you stopped posting for a while? If so, welcome back

[anonymous-user]

Cheers. I went off for a while. Now I will post a bit about cars, and maybe blather on about employment law in here, but I am going to avoid S,P&L and N,P&E, because they are silly places.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 28th March 09:27

[craigjm]

Breadvan72 said:

I am going to avoid S,P&L and N,P&E, because they are silly places.

Anyone vaguely sane would agree