First employment contract

arsenal

Hi all,

Finally got a job and just having a look at my first ever contract... (it's with a small enough company)..

First of all there is no mention of a salary review anywhere in the contract, is this standard? Is it something I should bring up or be concerned about?

Also there's a line that says I cannot work for a competitor for 12 months after leaving... I take it this is standard?

I'm supposed to bring the contract on Monday and sign it then. Overall I'm delighted with the job, think I did well to get it so I wouldn't consider myself in a particular position of strength. All the rest of the contract seems standard... it's just the review I was most wondering about. I've never dealt with anything like this before and am abit over whelmed?

gerrycollins

Is there any mention of an annual assessment? This would be usually included and as such a review salary would form part of the review. Never had a direct salary review as opposed to a performance review

leeroybrown

arsenal wrote: »

Also there's a line that says I cannot work for a competitor for 12 months after leaving... I take it this is standard?

It depends on the industry. Very few companies include these clauses. I'd also consider the clause to be quite punitive on someone in their first job too.

If you want the job you'll have to accept it tho as many more will.

arsenal

It's a medical device company so would consider it maybe reasonably normal....

Do you generally sign a new contract at the end of probation? As this would give me a chance to include an annual salary review clause?

Like most other people I'd say, I don't want to be creating waves or creating ill-feeling before I start, and generally hate talking about money in general... but people will take advantage of you if you don't look out for yourself I guess...

MadsL

I cannot work for a competitor for 12 months after leaving

Fairly standard, also relatively unenforceable.

The law won’t let your employer control where you work after you quit your job, even if you’ve signed a contract containing a restrictive clause, unless your former boss can prove certain things.

The first of these is that the employer has legitimate interests to protect, otherwise the judge might strike down the covenant. The second is that a non-compete clause has a reasonable geographical scope and the third is that restrictive covenants only last a reasonable period of time. Langford notes that a judge won’t reduce the period of time a restrictive covenant lasts. “It will either stand or fall,” he says.

It would also cost them a fair bit to bring this into the courts, unless you are selling proprietary technology/techniques to the competition - or have stolen information (client lists say). Or trying to set up a competing business.

To be honest I wouldn't let this worry you.

http://careeradvice.loadzajobs.ie/career-management/your-rights-at-work/anti-competition-clauses-or-non-compete-clauses-442

Thread in Legal discussion

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71239921

leeroybrown

Ah, I can understand that clause in a medical devices R&D firm. Just accept the clause and deal with the problems afterwards in the unlikely event they occur.

Delancey

MadsL wrote: »

Fairly standard, also relatively unenforceable.




It would also cost them a fair bit to bring this into the courts, unless you are selling proprietary technology/techniques to the competition - or have stolen information (client lists say). Or trying to set up a competing business.

To be honest I wouldn't let this worry you.

http://careeradvice.loadzajobs.ie/career-management/your-rights-at-work/anti-competition-clauses-or-non-compete-clauses-442

Thread in Legal discussion

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71239921

+ 1 . Such clauses are notoriously difficult and expensive to enforce. I would not fret about it too much.