4 ms·

Is a new signature required from the worker, in order to make the newly added non-compete binding, or not? This part seems confusing from that summary. If the

by nxb 11y ago

Is a new signature required from the worker, in order to make the newly added non-compete binding, or not? This part seems confusing from that summary. If the workers signed a new non-compete and then continued to work for the company, this ruling seems pretty obvious. If this is something like adding in a non-compete to an existing employment agreement without needing to obtain a new signature (as the completely insane UK laws allow,) then this is very bad.

matthewmacleod 11y ago
as the completely insane UK laws allow While you can technically make changes to an employment contract in th UK without requiring a new signature, agreement from the employee is required. If an employer tries to enforce changes without agreement, an employment tribunal will almost certainly rule in an employee's favour.
- mikeash 11y ago
  What constitutes sufficient proof of agreement there? A clear paper trail would make sense. A verbal agreement not so much. What's required by the law?
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    I don't think the law specifies what form of agreement is required - however, an employer must confirm all changes in writing. Agreement at this point is implicit - if the employee does not agree with the changes, they have the right to refuse to work, to take the case to a tribunal, or in some cases to resign and claim constructive dismissal. I know that if an employee doesn't agree with contract changes, they should take action immediately; continuing to work and not expressing your disagreement with the changes after you've been informed of them can be construes as implied agreement. Employment law in the UK seems pretty worker-friendly in the sense that most companies will take great pains to avoid the risk of employment tribunals and other employee action, but I concede it's a bit less formalised than in other jurisdictions.
  - dozzie 11y ago
    Witnesses, I guess.
- nxb 11y ago
  Shockingly, signature is often not actually required in the UK for changes to employment contracts. Sorry I can't find better sources at the moment, but this was recently ruled on again by the UK courts. No signature is required, simply remaining at the job is enough to constitute acceptance in the UK for employment contracts. The employers don't even to show any evidence that you were aware that the contract has been changed. > Following on from this, a contract of employment does not need to be signed for it to be a binding agreement between the parties as acceptance of its terms can be either verbal or implied through conduct. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2715470/Is-employment-contract-binding-I-never-actually-signed-It-says-I-three-month-notice-period-never-signed-I-respect-it.html#ixzz3j6o0Rnha http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2715470/I... Add to this, the UK courts are often upholding extremely unilateral employment contract clauses that give the employer the "right to change the contract without the employee's permission at any time." Extremely unilateral power. The UK courts see no problem with it at all. Quite insane.
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    Sure; see my other response regarding this. AFAIK implied acceptance of contract is actually common in UK law. It would be good to see some examples of court upholding "extremely unilateral employment contract clauses that give the employer the 'right to change the contract without the employee's permission at any time.'" – not because I don't believe you, I'm just interested in where this is happening. Unfair employment contracts are a bit of a political issue right now.
serge2k 11y ago
I believe it is saying that you can be told sign this or your fired, and have no recourse but to sign or get fired.
- hwstar 11y ago
  Say you choose not to sign and are terminated. I wonder if this would be treated by the state unemployment agency as "Termination with cause", or "Terminated without cause i.e. laid off"? If you are terminated with cause you can't collect unemployment benefits or Cobra. I suspect that this will vary from state to state.
kbenson 11y ago
That was my first thought at well. From the article: The Court framed the issue as: …whether non-competition agreements require additional consideration beyond continued at-will employment before binding agreements are formed. The issue arises if a current employee is required to sign such an agreement as a condition of continued employment, without any further benefits or consideration. So, this isn't really anything new for jurisdictions that support at-will employment and don't require reasons for termination. Not really any different than an employer telling you your expected duties have changed. You still have the option to quit, they still have the option to fire you.

by nxb 11y ago

matthewmacleod 11y ago

as the completely insane UK laws allow While you can technically make changes to an employment contract in th UK without requiring a new signature, agreement from the employee is required. If an employer tries to enforce changes without agreement, an employment tribunal will almost certainly rule in an employee's favour.

mikeash 11y ago
What constitutes sufficient proof of agreement there? A clear paper trail would make sense. A verbal agreement not so much. What's required by the law?
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  I don't think the law specifies what form of agreement is required - however, an employer must confirm all changes in writing. Agreement at this point is implicit - if the employee does not agree with the changes, they have the right to refuse to work, to take the case to a tribunal, or in some cases to resign and claim constructive dismissal. I know that if an employee doesn't agree with contract changes, they should take action immediately; continuing to work and not expressing your disagreement with the changes after you've been informed of them can be construes as implied agreement. Employment law in the UK seems pretty worker-friendly in the sense that most companies will take great pains to avoid the risk of employment tribunals and other employee action, but I concede it's a bit less formalised than in other jurisdictions.
- dozzie 11y ago
  Witnesses, I guess.
nxb 11y ago
Shockingly, signature is often not actually required in the UK for changes to employment contracts. Sorry I can't find better sources at the moment, but this was recently ruled on again by the UK courts. No signature is required, simply remaining at the job is enough to constitute acceptance in the UK for employment contracts. The employers don't even to show any evidence that you were aware that the contract has been changed. > Following on from this, a contract of employment does not need to be signed for it to be a binding agreement between the parties as acceptance of its terms can be either verbal or implied through conduct. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2715470/Is-employment-contract-binding-I-never-actually-signed-It-says-I-three-month-notice-period-never-signed-I-respect-it.html#ixzz3j6o0Rnha http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2715470/I... Add to this, the UK courts are often upholding extremely unilateral employment contract clauses that give the employer the "right to change the contract without the employee's permission at any time." Extremely unilateral power. The UK courts see no problem with it at all. Quite insane.
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  Sure; see my other response regarding this. AFAIK implied acceptance of contract is actually common in UK law. It would be good to see some examples of court upholding "extremely unilateral employment contract clauses that give the employer the 'right to change the contract without the employee's permission at any time.'" – not because I don't believe you, I'm just interested in where this is happening. Unfair employment contracts are a bit of a political issue right now.

serge2k 11y ago

I believe it is saying that you can be told sign this or your fired, and have no recourse but to sign or get fired.

hwstar 11y ago
Say you choose not to sign and are terminated. I wonder if this would be treated by the state unemployment agency as "Termination with cause", or "Terminated without cause i.e. laid off"? If you are terminated with cause you can't collect unemployment benefits or Cobra. I suspect that this will vary from state to state.

kbenson 11y ago

That was my first thought at well. From the article: The Court framed the issue as: …whether non-competition agreements require additional consideration beyond continued at-will employment before binding agreements are formed. The issue arises if a current employee is required to sign such an agreement as a condition of continued employment, without any further benefits or consideration. So, this isn't really anything new for jurisdictions that support at-will employment and don't require reasons for termination. Not really any different than an employer telling you your expected duties have changed. You still have the option to quit, they still have the option to fire you.