New job - strange contract term?

[alfa daley]

Hi folks,

I've managed to land a new job and have been going through the contract today which contained the following phrase:

LAY OFF AND SHORT-TIME WORKING
Your right to receive remuneration is dependent on you being provided by the Company with work of the kind which you are employed to do. The Company reserves the right in its absolute discretion to impose on you a lay off with no pay or to impose short-time working with a pro rata reduction in pay. The Company may in its absolute discretion determine the duration of any period of lay off or short-time working. During any period of lay off or short-time working you must remain contactable and available for work if required. You may in certain circumstances be entitled to receive a guarantee payment in which case the Company will comply with its statutory obligations.

I'm no lawyer but is this normal, to me it seems like they could make me sit at home on no pay awaiting their call...

Thanks in advance

[Rovinghawk]

Didn't burger chains get grief over doing this a few years ago?

RH

[alfa daley]

Thankfully it's not a job that will involve whoppers or flame grilling of any kind!

[maccboy]

I think it's what is referred to as a 'zero hours contract'. It's been in the news a bit recently because there might be no guaranteed work - but it's flexible. I'm not sure that it includes the 'always available for work' line though. It might be worth googling 'zero hours contract' though.

[Terminator X]

Wow, should have read it before acceptance! If they are pisstakers you could be in trouble ...

TX.

[Rovinghawk]

http://www.smallbusiness.co.uk/starting-a-business...

[10 Pence Short]

In leaner times I was offered a job with a time share holiday park in The Lakes. I queried a similar clause and one that gave me less than statutory holiday. The offer was immediately withdrawn. I think I had a lucky escape.

[Snowboy]

It is a good contract allowing small businesses to adjust their workforce and staffing cost to customer demand while allowing the employee a good degree of job security even with reduced hours rather than the company being forced to hire and fire part time staff.


It is an evil contract allowing the company to take advantage of a workforce that is desperate for work. It's underhanded and unethical.

Take your pick.

[barker22]

It is to cover employers when there isn't much work on. They can ask you not to come in all week without having to pay you your contracted hours, because basically....you have no contracted hours.

Had a very similar clause at my last place but instead of not paying us when we had 'time off', they paid us in full each month and then we owed them hours back when work was plentiful. So free overtime for the employer! It was a total shambles.

I think it depends on the employer and how they implement the clause. It can be useful but can equally shaft the employees every time the work is a little slack.

[alfa daley]

Terminator X said:

Wow, should have read it before acceptance! If they are pisstakers you could be in trouble ...

TX.

I haven't accepted it yet hence was trying to get a feel from the PH wisdom.

I think I will query this and enquire whether it has been used before on employees. This is for a large company circa 1,000 employees worldwide and a good reputation.

Thanks


Simon

[anonymous-user]

It's not a zero hours contract and is something that any company can impose. The level of pay depends on the contract terms and if the layoff goes on for more than 4 weeks, or 6 in 13, you can claim redundancy.

You can claim benefit for any days laid off.

Can't see the harm in it, given the alternative is straight forward redundancy.

[mph1977]

REALIST123 said:

It's not a zero hours contract and is something that any company can impose. The level of pay depends on the contract terms and if the layoff goes on for more than 4 weeks, or 6 in 13, you can claim redundancy.

You can claim benefit for any days laid off.

Can't see the harm in it, given the alternative is straight forward redundancy.

THe OPs issue is that even when laid off and not being paid the employer expects him to be available for work - and doesn't specify notice

Tjhis has the potential to be worse in terms of work -life balance that actually being at work - is he allowed to disappear off to go fishing / sailing / camping , can he have a drink ?

It also potentially prevents the OP from ameliorating his losses from short time working / being laid off by contracting / doing random agency work depending on his skills and contacts ...

[Devil2575]

REALIST123 said:

It's not a zero hours contract and is something that any company can impose.

Can they?

I'm fairly sure my contract does not allow for it.

[Terminator X]

alfa daley said:

Terminator X said:

Wow, should have read it before acceptance! If they are pisstakers you could be in trouble ...

TX.

I haven't accepted it yet hence was trying to get a feel from the PH wisdom.

I think I will query this and enquire whether it has been used before on employees. This is for a large company circa 1,000 employees worldwide and a good reputation.

Thanks

Simon

Ah ok fair enough. FYI my previous employer tried to introduce "flexible working" on staff who had full time contracts whereby the company could reduce an employees hours down by up to 20% as long as they gave a week or two's notice ie they could put us on a 4 day week and only pay 80% salary of course. As someone noted above the company stance was that reduced hours would reduce their overhead in times of need meaning redundancies could be avoided. Whilst it was introduced with a fair amount of gnashing of teeth across the company they never actually used the new clause on anyone afaik.

TX.

[mph1977]

Rovinghawk said:

Didn't burger chains get grief over doing this a few years ago?

RH

that was 'oh it;s quiet have a break' and making people clock out but they have remain on the premises to be called back by the floor manager ... if it;s an unpaid break you can't be called back to your job and are free to leave site as long as you are back at the specified time ...

it's like 'period of availability' setting on a tacho or the stuff surrounding on site on calls for Hospital Doctors etc.

[edc]

This cluase is barely different to statutory lay-off. By stating no pay, this in effect means there is no contractual pay over and above what the law provides as a minimum. As above, it can be good to be explicit with terms even if they are applicable even if not written in your contract. An alternative approach may have been to have such clauses as part of a redundancy/lay-off policy within the Employee Manual (which is often not sent out with offer paperwork and can be subject to change at the company's discretion). Any sane management team will only exercise the company's rights only when absolutely necessary.

[TurricanII]

TurricanII said:

This clause might be the least of your worries. In the first two years they can let you go with no reason, although they cannot discriminate against you (fire you for being gay, female etc.). ETA for this reason I would crack on and see how it goes, and would not bother about that clause.

I am aware of one company that closed a branch and invoked a layoff. The statutory pay was so bad that most employees had to quit and find another job to pay the bills, and the company somehow avoided tribunals and redundancy pay.

[anonymous-user]

Devil2575 said:

REALIST123 said:

It's not a zero hours contract and is something that any company can impose.

Can they?

I'm fairly sure my contract does not allow for it.

Really? Maybe you have a contract that rules it out, which only means that if there were nothing for you to do, the only alternative would be redundancy.

The following is from the Gov.uk site. This stuff isn't hard to find.

Part 1:
Overview
Your employer can ask you to stay at home or take unpaid leave if there’s not enough work for you:

a lay-off is if you’re off work for at least 1 working day
short-time working is when your hours are cut
How long you can be laid-off
There’s no limit for how long you can be laid-off or put on short-time. You could apply for redundancy and claim redundancy
pay if it’s been:

4 weeks in a row
6 weeks in a 13-week period
Lay-off pay entitlement and short-time working payments
You should get your full pay unless your contract allows unpaid or reduced pay lay-offs.


Why would anyone think this is worse than simply being made redundant? (other than the conspiracy theorists)

[Initial J]

I'm going through this exact situation at the moment. Have the same clause in my contract. 2 weeks ago I got told on a Friday at 4 o'clock that I am being temporary laid off and not to come back until I'm told to. With no previous warning that this was going to happen it was quite a shock. I'm now waiting for the 4 weeks to be up to claim redundancy, but turning down freelance work during this time is quite annoying as technically I still have to be ready to work if they call me in.

[edc]

REALIST123 said:

Devil2575 said:

REALIST123 said:

It's not a zero hours contract and is something that any company can impose.

Can they?

I'm fairly sure my contract does not allow for it.

Really? Maybe you have a contract that rules it out, which only means that if there were nothing for you to do, the only alternative would be redundancy.

The following is from the Gov.uk site. This stuff isn't hard to find.

Part 1:
Overview
Your employer can ask you to stay at home or take unpaid leave if there’s not enough work for you:

a lay-off is if you’re off work for at least 1 working day
short-time working is when your hours are cut
How long you can be laid-off
There’s no limit for how long you can be laid-off or put on short-time. You could apply for redundancy and claim redundancy
pay if it’s been:

4 weeks in a row
6 weeks in a 13-week period
Lay-off pay entitlement and short-time working payments
You should get your full pay unless your contract allows unpaid or reduced pay lay-offs.


Why would anyone think this is worse than simply being made redundant? (other than the conspiracy theorists)

In some certain circumstances redundancy may indeed be the favourable option for some employees. Some companies have very generous enhanced redundancy pay, couple that with long service and that can add up to a substantial payment compared to your annual basic salary, not forgetting the tax-free element which is another kicker.

If on the other hand you have short service and the company only pays statutory redundancy pay then you would consider whether it is worth waiting out for.