Contract Law

Myrddin

Hi folks, I'm trying to find out some information regarding employment law around contracts (it's not for myself, I'm just asking on behalf). Basically, the person in question has been employed in a part time position for close to ten years, doing the same shift, the same hours etc from day one (and continues to do so today).

However, a new 'updated contract' has been circulated around the staff/branches, for everyone to sign. The problem is the new contract is expressly stating that the employee signing it, must be flexible in terms of hours, over seven days. Now, for almost everyone else in the job, this isn't a problem as they are all flexible anyway. The person I'm asking this for though, isn't, and was hired on that basis. It was agreed then that set hours would be fine for this person.

Now though, the rank & file are getting upset over this person refusing to sign this new contract, and have refused to revise and customise the contract, to make provisions for this persons fixed hours. Those in the head office, have stated it's not company policy to do individual contracts for individual people, & that 'it'll be grand, sure we all know your hours anyway" etc etc.

The longer it's going on, the more sour the tone is turning, with statements like "well I'll have to talk to the CEO about this and he won't be happy" etc. They (head office) also threw a spanner in the works by saying "well you signed an older contract a few years ago that had the same thing in it", so we are awaiting a copy of that to see exactly what was signed.

My question is this, if theoretically a contract was signed by the person I know a few years ago (2011) that stated flexible hours, have the intervening three or four years since that contract was signed (where the hours have been fixed/not flexible) served to imply a change in contract, & that there's scope to challenge anything signed in 2011?

Further, upon looking at the info online, it appears that unless changes brought about in a contract are as a result of changes in legislation, there is no responsibility for either party to sign a contract of employment unless both are satisfied as to its contents. Is this correct?

Mods, apologies if this is the wrong forum. I tried asking a few days ago in Work Problems but got not replies. I figured the legal guru's might have some insight though into what defines an 'implied contract, if indeed it even exists?

Mr. Incognito

This falls squarely into employment law advice and is banned.

Look at your contract as to what it says. Then look at Citizens information as to what acts apply to your situation.

In general though, no-one can make you sign anything you don't want to. Ever. If you are uncomfortable signing it go speak to a solicitor.

Myrddin

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

This falls squarely into employment law advice and is banned.

Ah, no prob, apologies mods.

In general though, no-one can make you sign anything you don't want to. Ever. If you are uncomfortable signing it go speak to a solicitor.

Cheers for that, it's as I envisaged from what I read. Leaving this specific case aside, is there even such thing as an implied contract, based on the repetition of certain hours/shift, that might supersede a previously written one?

Mr. Incognito

Myrddin wrote: »

Ah, no prob, apologies mods.



Cheers for that, it's as I envisaged from what I read. Leaving this specific case aside, is there even such thing as an implied contract, based on the repetition of certain hours/shift, that might supersede a previously written one?

Not really. Your employment contract is what governs your terms of employment.

There are implied conditions by statute that one cannot contract out off.

Just because you have a practice that has continued or allowed continue that does not match your employment contract does not mean that you cease to be bound by its terms. There are exceptions where a contract can be amended by the behaviour of both parties but only a court can decide that and its usually when the understanding of one or both of the contracted parties differs to what is expressed in the contract itself.

Here you know what you are contracted to, but you simply don't want to work it and have been getting away with not working it. Doesn't mean that you don't actually have to work it

Myrddin

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Just because you have a practice that has continued or allowed continue that does not match your employment contract does not mean that you cease to be bound by its terms.

Perfect, many thanks for that.

MarkAnthony

While I'm not trying to encroach on legal advice there is always the possibility that redundancy could start rearing it's head if a reorganisation of hours has happened and the employee can't come to an agreement with the employer. Just something to consider (and get proper advice on).