Contract of Employment V's Offer Letter... T&C's

[Baldy881]

There are times in life when you wish you'd been a little more observant...

Started employment with current employer in August 2008 and my offer letter stated my salary, bonus scheme, hours of employment and also my entitlement to a company car and fuel benefit (business & private).

Some point in 2009 the boss drew up some official contracts to sign and go in personnel files as these had never been done and as the business was going through lots of change he was wanting to make everything offical and proper. He said the contracts were just a formality so like a tt, i skimmed over it all too quickly and signed on the dotted line.

Now two weeks ago the company has suddenly been bought out, and obviously the new people have gone through the contracts and pointed out that these state business fuel only. It was all done on standard template documents (ammended for specific job title/hours/salary) and so clearly the contracts were incorrectly worded (AND YES I KNOW I SHOULD HAVE READ IT PROPERLY AND NOT SIGNED IT!).

This morning we had to hand in all our fuel cards therefore no longer receiving this benefit on the basis that the contracts stated we were not entitled to private fuel, even though i have been receiving this benefit since August 2008 to date.

I can only assume my offer of employment stating the benefits (signed by my now ex boss) means jack st? Do i have any ground on the basis that i have been clearly and knowingly receiving these benefits? Or does signed contract of employment trump all?

Any advice welcomed

[Bonefish Blues]

Were you continuing to receive the benefit post the boss's revised contract being issued?

If so, it would tend to indicate that a pro-forma contract was used which contained an error.

However, the new owners would equally argue that you explicitly signed away this right, which is now being enforced after a period of grace.

You don't really have a realistic way to enforce this (inreasingly unusual) benefit, TBH, so in practical terms I think it's a goner.

[Baldy881]

Yes i have always received the benefit, even after the contracts containing the error in wording were done.

Have had a little look this afternoon and actually i may have more rights than i first expected...

What i thought was the overriding contract of employment is actually worded "Statement of Particulars of Employment" and states "This Statement together with your offer letter and the Employee Handbook form your written contract of employment"

So the fact that at home i have my original offer of employment stating that i am eligible for private and business fuel, although conflicting with the wording in the Statement of Particulars, means that both documents together comprise my actual contract of employment don't they?

I know private fuel is usually classed an uncommon benefit these days, but i work in the motor trade where more senior positions quite often are given this. And that was the case when i started my employment.

[Bonefish Blues]

Baldy881 said:

Yes i have always received the benefit, even after the contracts containing the error in wording were done.

Have had a little look this afternoon and actually i may have more rights than i first expected...

What i thought was the overriding contract of employment is actually worded "Statement of Particulars of Employment" and states "This Statement together with your offer letter and the Employee Handbook form your written contract of employment"

So the fact that at home i have my original offer of employment stating that i am eligible for private and business fuel, although conflicting with the wording in the Statement of Particulars, means that both documents together comprise my actual contract of employment don't they?

I know private fuel is usually classed an uncommon benefit these days, but i work in the motor trade where more senior positions quite often are given this. And that was the case when i started my employment.

Yes they do all comprise your contract, but it is usually held that the later ones supersede the earlier ones, unless the subsequent ones are silent on something contained in the earlier one, if you get my meaning.

[anonymous-user]

You can argue that the written contract does not reflect the agreement, stronger if you can also argue you did not get chance to read it but relied on the statements of the other party that it contained the same terms as the letter, and stronger again if you can argue pressure to sign, you can then get the contract 'rectified' to reflect the true agreement. But if they did not accept the arguement and you tried to pursue rectifcation throught the court it will be very expensive.