Contract term to remain for a minimum period.

woodyman

How binding is a term in a contract which states that "there is an agreement in principle from you to remain in this position for a minimum of 6 months".

Can an employer enforce such a term?

There is a separate term noting minimum notice of 2 weeks and another regarding minimum probationary period.

_Brian

Biggest risk is being sued for breach of contract.

The weighing factor will be “what impact will there be on the company if you leave”

I’m presuming they are investing heavily in training or some such which can be very costly, many companies want to see a minimum return for this.

Maybe they have another reason.

Have you asked about being released early ?

Triceratops Ballet

it would be very difficult for an employer to enforce such a clause. Nothing beyond the statutory min notice periods is enforceable. Obviously most people uphold their contractual notice periods for career reasons and to not burn bridges, but even a 3 month contractual notice period is not enforceable.

Typically if it's to cover themselves for expenditure on training there will be an additional clause that says if the employee terminates prior to x amt of time after course is completed the employee will owe the money spent on their training back to the company.

woodyman

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

it would be very difficult for an employer to enforce such a clause. Nothing beyond the statutory min notice periods is enforceable. Obviously most people uphold their contractual notice periods for career reasons and to not burn bridges, but even a 3 month contractual notice period is not enforceable.

Typically if it's to cover themselves for expenditure on training there will be an additional clause that says if the employee terminates prior to x amt of time after course is completed the employee will owe the money spent on their training back to the company.

Thanks that's good to know. Believe it or not this is actually for a part time job my housemate has started. There is no special training course involved. So I expect that it's little more than a wish of the employer. Still seems excessive to include.

RunRoryRun

Is there any chance it means that the person in the role won't be considered for promotion for this 6 month period? I've heard of minimum periods for this. It seems odd they would mention the 6 months and 2 weeks in the same contract if they weren't talking about different things.

BrokenArrows

woodyman wrote: »

Thanks that's good to know. Believe it or not this is actually for a part time job my housemate has started. There is no special training course involved. So I expect that it's little more than a wish of the employer. Still seems excessive to include.

Probably just a little scare tactic in the contract to attempt to reduce turn over.

But in reality there is nothing they can do to prevent someone leaving.

An employers only option is to sue the employee, however for something like a part time job its not going to happen.

Now if your friend was being hired as a CEO or something then he might have something to worry about !!:D:D

woodyman

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Probably just a little scare tactic in the contract to attempt to reduce turn over.

But in reality there is nothing they can do to prevent someone leaving.

An employers only option is to sue the employee, however for something like a part time job its not going to happen.

Now if your friend was being hired as a CEO or something then he might have something to worry about !!:D:D

Yea I'd say its probably a scare tactic alright. Thats a good point.