Unfair contract term?

[u25kr]

Having survived the latest round of job losses in the UK offshore sector, i have received my new contract. It has a clause which basically states that if i do not stay on if my back to back does not turn up i will face disciplinary action.

Historically it was accepted that if your back to back did not turn up you had to cover his position until cover was found. However this fell out of practice several years ago and no-one was forced to stay on if they did not want to. Now we are on an equal time rota i value my time at home and wonder if this would be classed as an unfair term?

Thanks

[u25kr]

My role could be considered safety critical which is fair enough. However one of the criteria to allow us to move to an equal time rota was to ensure there was adequate cover for safety critical roles, so even if my back to back does not turn up there will be someone on the platform able to provide cover, (if not then our risk assessment has failed). This appears to be a blanket "you will stay on" even if cover is available. That aside the contract term applies to all operations personnel, so your standard operator has this in their contract as well.

I don't plan on rocking the boat over this but will mention it to my manager when i have an opportune time. It has been discussed amongst ourselves and the general consensus is that we would still refuse to stay on will see how management responds to that.

[u25kr]

An update for those that are interested

I spoke to my manager about it and he basically said that although they could enforce the contract term, they know that the person could then go to the medic and declare themself unfit to work, so it doesn't get them anywhere. It was said that management would rather shut down, (the rig), than enforce the contract.

We will see next week as we have had so many absences it is unlikely we will be able to provide cover over the Christmas period