Employment Contract - Lay Off Clause

[FrayedKnot]

The company I work for appears to be trying to introduce a clause in our contracts which allows them to lay people off without pay for short periods if there is not enough work.

It seems a pretty unlikely scenario but yet obviously totally undesirable.

Is this kind of thing common in employment contracts? I assume it is perfectly legal.

Has anyone any experience of this?

[flowerybeanbag]

No experience but it's perfectly legal if it's in your contract and sometimes if it's common practice in the industry you work in as well, see info here about it.

[FrayedKnot]

Hi FB, it isn;t common practice in the industry, no. It's not the kind of organization where levels of work fluctuate dramatically.

There are a number of staff on temporary contracts anyway to cover projects with a finite length.

I am suspicious as to why an organization would want to introduce this kind of clause, I've never had a contract previously with this in.

Should I be suspicious do you think?

[flowerybeanbag]

I don't really know whether you should be suspicious.

As you can see from the link, this practice is perfectly legal but there are restrictions and guidelines applying to it, so it can't be used to avoid paying redundancy money for example. Seems bizarre to go through the hassle of introducing something like this in an organisation without obvious need for it.

Is it a unionised workplace? If so I presume the union are being negotiated with over this.

If not, make sure the company is jumping through all the required hoops to make this change, consulting with employees or employees' representative body/ies. It's quite a significant one obviously, there are things they need to do if they want to change terms and conditions, and if employees don't agree it's even more difficult to do, particularly if it would be hard to claim there is a genuine business need.

See here about what happens if you don't agree.