Contract with The Devil

zine21 on 27/01/2017 - 08:50
Last edited 27/01/2017 - 23:40

So I'm finally entering the "working" world and have gotten a few offers that sounded good. I was interested in one due to its convenient location until I was given the contract.

There is a lot of formality that I'm very foreign to. From my understanding, it seems that the clause they've placed are very vague and can mean anything. They claim rights over relocating me to any location they see fit and I'd be responsible for the costs of moving (not just my move but moving instruments, equipment etc that is used). They also expect me to be on call and claim rights over deciding/ changing my work hours (the verbal agreement was a M-F job with regular business hours so why would they need me on call or claim full rights over changing that).

There are several other points that just does not sit right and I'm not sure if this is what is normal?

For example: the company has rights to terminate the agreement at any time with a 4 week notice without a given reason however I have no rights to claim any compensation or damages during or after this. I can't work within 20k radius of any of their offices for 5 yrs nor can I see any of my clients or work with any of my colleges after I stop working for them. I will also have no rights over any of my intellectual property and will be paying out of pocket for any training or courses I decide to attend (professional development is mandatory in this field).

Its 25 pages of really detailed clause and their rights to basically remove my rights and and I'm not okay with giving away my rights. I mean I get them wanting to preserve their rights but what about my rights ? can they really have control over or claim that I give up my rights in a contract

It even mentions that if the contract was to be adjusted that they have a right to request that I pay the fees of their solicitors

My position isn't a business law type either so having such a contract is so odd to me.

Ive decided to see a lawyer about it but Ive never worked with them. Should I be looking for one that works within the field I'm in ? Is there anything else I should be looking out for or doing ?

Edit: Ive talked briefly with the company and they're willing to make changes however I don't know if I can or should ever trust a company that would try and trap new grads into such a contract.

Any experience/advice on this would be highly appreciated!

Education & Work

Comments

  • lgacb08 on 27/01/2017 - 09:10
    +2

    Sounds like a six figure job, I wouldn't sign up for it if they pay less than that.

    • doodo477 on 28/01/2017 - 02:27
      +2

      You cannot sign away your statutory right.

      Quickly reading over the contract that zine21 has posted the last time I was issued with such a contract and had a lawyer look over the legal advice was it would be unreasonable to restrict the employees employment (even if its written in the contract). Though this in NSW in 2008 so I don't know how reliant it is today.

      A contract is between you and the organisation if they cannot clearly explain the contract clause by leading by example then you should ask them to strike the clause out of the contract. If they're unwilling to strike the clause out of the contract (they declining to give a example where it may be enforced) then ask them to pay for your legal representation to have a lawyer to explain the clause in detail to you.

      Asking a employee to pay for your legal advice is like me asking to take your partner for a ride and you can pay for the romantic cruise. Don't forget they've presented a employment contract to you.

      Either way If I was presented with such a contract I would say the following.
      I've read the contract and happy to sign the contract on the caveat that the wage be increased from #### to $200,000 to clearly reflect the position and its requirements set out in said contract.

  • pantsparty on 27/01/2017 - 09:18
    +10

    I wouldn't take the job. Can't work within 20kms for 5 years after you leave? So you need to move to a different city? This is rubbish. Terminate with no reason whenever they want? I would rather get paid a bit less and have more job security and peace of mind. If this job is paying you amazingly, say $40k a year more than the next best offer, I would consider it.

    • shaybisc on 27/01/2017 - 14:56

      That's a more restrictive clause than they would put in a CEO's contract- bloody unbelievable.

      • StewBalls on 28/01/2017 - 09:09
        +3

        It's also utterly unenforceable in a standard employment contract…

        I've seen countless NGOs put these idiotic restraint of trade clauses into employment contracts, they never even attempt to enforce them, they are only there to bluff the unwary into capitulation.

    • Blitzfx on 28/01/2017 - 00:15

      I'm pretty sure in court you can nullify unreasonable clauses in contracts should you go down that route.
      It's one thing to work within 20kms, it's another for them to FIND out you're working within 20kms and THEN go out of their way to sue you. So I guess there's that. Things that are far too vague end up being far too encompassing/broad and get thrown out immediately.

      • doodo477 on 28/01/2017 - 02:34
        +1

        If one part is unwilling to move on a clause the Judge can rule that it will be enforced but the employee or party will need to be compensated for loss of income, career advancement. So you can get full pay including super for the duration of the restrictive clause.

    • cantanga on 28/01/2017 - 21:48

      I've seen it enforced once, maybe not exactly as above but it was along the lines of not in the same industry for 1 year. Very small industry in Australia as they started the third company in that industry. There was also theft of IP involved so whether they would have sued them if that wasn't involved I don't know.

      • Yamai on 28/01/2017 - 22:24

        That seems abit different than what is being said though about a 20km exclusion zone.

    • Tech5 on 29/01/2017 - 03:55

      Those clauses are usually cascading restraints. It should more so look something like this: Cannot work within:

      20km-1 year
      10km-2 year
      5km-3 year
      1km-5 year.

      Any issues, and the court will pick one of those that seem "reasonable".

      Restraint of trade clauses are very hard to enforce, particularly if there are no cascading levels.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/01/2017 - 09:21
    +8

    You get some protection from some of those unreasonable terms being a 'restraint of trade'. Not dealing with existing clients is a fair requirement, the other stuff tends not to be enforced in the real world, not unless you are cutting the employer's lunch in competition. If you were terminated, there is little chance of the 20km clause being enforceable. If you deliberately started a business in direct competition, it might be.

  • Jebediah_Kerman on 27/01/2017 - 09:25
    +3

    For a lot of positions, the contract is negotiable just like the salary.

    Ask them to remove clauaes you are uncomfortable with. If you are going to reject the offer because of the contract, tell them that is the case.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 27/01/2017 - 22:43
      +1

      Ask them to remove clauaes you are uncomfortable with.

      Or ask for added pay due to specific clauses.

      Don't just turn down the contract without feedback, there's usually an opportunity to negotiate. Let them know that you're not a sucker nor an ignoramus and demand what you're comfortable with.

  • yycan on 27/01/2017 - 09:25
    +11

    is this employment contract even legal? Surely it's against some labour laws.

  • Diji1 on 27/01/2017 - 09:31
    -2

    Welcome to the world the Liberals wanted. Are you going to vote for this regime next election like you did the last one?

    • Speckled Jim on 27/01/2017 - 10:38
      +4

      Sorta true, but trade liberalisation began with Keating. Superannuation was Labor too, and that's a right mess thanks to successive terms of fiddling by both sides.

      It's primarily the Boomers who are to blame. They enjoyed a hippie youth and later sold out in the name of comfort. They were on the defensive about ten years ago when the "liberal" media was exposing their "spend their inheritance" binges (Harleys, holidays etc).
      The height of hypocrisy — I hope they all (mod: removed)

      Ultimately we must ALL wear a degree of responsibility for the IR issues we continue experience. 7/11, Woolies/Coles are the tip of the iceberg. And today Pizza Hut are in the spotlight with the Fair Work Ombudsman on ABC 24 announcing they are gearing up for litigation.

      It's a mess. People are either too dumb, gullible or apathetic to understand that once something is gone, it's gone for good. Workplace rights and privacy are history.

      • StewBalls on 28/01/2017 - 08:08
        -4

        Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut & be thought a fool, rather than open it & remove all doubt…just FYI.

      • StingyBritches on 28/01/2017 - 10:07
        +3

        Oh, please stop the blame game. It's "The Boomers" or it's the "Millennials" or it's whoever else you can conveniently lump in to your generalisations.

  • Seraphin7 on 27/01/2017 - 09:36
    +1

    Is this fair dinkum? I've seen a lot of employment contract in my time that deal with all manner of issues, but I've never seen one that says you "can't work within 20k radius of any of their offices for 5 yrs". Is this what it really says? Does this then mean that you can't work at a fast food joint within 20k? What if you become a delivery driver and need to deliver something within that radius?

    • retiredfeline on 27/01/2017 - 09:41
      +1

      In same or similar trade obviously.

      • Seraphin7 on 27/01/2017 - 09:47

        That would be typical, but that's not what it says.

        • retiredfeline on 27/01/2017 - 09:50
          +1

          We don't know what it actually says. OP isn't even sure if he pays relocation or the employer does. This is normally paid by the employer.

        • zine21 on 27/01/2017 - 09:57

          @greenpossum: no its pretty clear that I'll be paying for relocation costs such as accommodation and travel costs- it mentions this in two separate areas. What the contract is vague about is whether I'd also be responsible for relocation costs associated with moving the office as its worded very ambiguously. Now obviously its ridiculous to expect me to cover that cost but why would they word it in such a manner remains suspicious. (I had a friend review this and they were the ones who picked up on how it reads as if they expect me to cover the cost of the office relocation as well as my own)

    • zine21 on 27/01/2017 - 10:03
      +1

      It doesn't clarify and it is very vague but I assume they wouldn't care if I was working in fast food or delivery work.

      • retiredfeline on 27/01/2017 - 10:06

        Obviously they are not interested in you going past in the course of non-related business and couldn't enforce that but if you set up a competing business within 20 km…

      • Seraphin7 on 30/01/2017 - 09:28

        Assume nothing.

    • Blitzfx on 28/01/2017 - 00:21

      I knew a guy who's contract stated that at the end of his employment (for any reason), he's not allowed to do work Engineering work related to his industry in his state for x-amount of years (I've forgotten).

      Thing is, he was consulting for all sorts of stuff so what it meant is that he couldn't do ANY sort of engineering he was qualified for if he decided to leave.
      It was better to catch this dodgy stuff early than to waste time and money arguing the absurdity of it in court.

  • holdenmg on 27/01/2017 - 09:37
    +9

    Do this:
    https://www.fairwork.gov.au/contact-us/call-us

  • retiredfeline on 27/01/2017 - 09:40
    -1

    Welcome to the working world. Those conditions do exist in contracts, e.g. termination, IP ownership, restraint on competition after leaving. I hope the pay is worth it. I can't imagine then going to that detail for an office peon. What job is it? Go talk to a legal person if you don't understand the contract.

    • zine21 on 27/01/2017 - 10:00
      +2

      I dont think the pay is going to be worth it. Theres to many clause and expectations that I'll be covering various costs such as GST and service fees, travel they require me to undertake, relocation, as well training (they expect me to pay for any training they provide or obtain funding on my own which is not actually normal for this field). Considering this is a medical field these rules seem very off

      • retiredfeline on 27/01/2017 - 10:03

        Well if they are no good at drafting a clear contract then that's a point against them.

        Those sound more like franchise conditions rather than employee conditions if you ask me.

        • zine21 on 27/01/2017 - 10:14
          +1

          Well this was completed by the companies lawyers so maybe its left vague on purpose. Theres a possibility that they thought new grads are noobs and will agree to anything so it was constructed on that manner on purpose

        • retiredfeline on 27/01/2017 - 10:35
          +7

          @zine21: Those conditions where you pay for your own training are of the most concern. You could be very out of pocket.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/01/2017 - 10:18
    +7

    I would start walking briskly away. No amount of undue stress is worth what your seemingly taking on…

    You do realise if they can replace you with someone who will work for less they will, and you'll be saying goodbye to whatever city you have lived in if you want to work in the same field.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/01/2017 - 10:31

    If your gullible enough to consider signing the contract in its current form I would consider you insane.

    Job security does not seem very good either which I alluded to in my first post.

  • slow on 27/01/2017 - 11:16
    +9

    A contract can't override the law. From what I've heard many companies put those sorts of thing in, but they aren't enforceable. Apparently even not working for a competitor for a set period of time (which many companies have in their contracts ) is very difficult to enforce.
    But yes it does sound like they have some issues

    • Lysander on 27/01/2017 - 15:56
      +3

      Very true. Just like companies put lots of enforceable stuff in their terms and conditions. Just because it is in there does not mean it is enforceable.

    • bluesky on 28/01/2017 - 15:12
      +2

      Whether the clauses are enforceable or not, it is still unwise to sign a contract containing such clauses.

      OP, not sure about your area, but in some areas, big companies with big war chest bully small competitiors, sometimes out of existence, on all sorts of things, like IP etc. Likewise, they can also bully a former employee. Nothing needs to hold up in law, a pretext is enough. (And perfect, if the next employer just happens to be a company the old employer wishes to bully, they can tie that in with employee stealing their IP now used by new company). The aim usually is to drain the other party of funds, drag things as long as possible and beat the other party into submission. When they lose, they may be able to appeal. It is about who has the funds to last.

      Your next employer could be a smaller company that is afraid to have a current employee, and themselves, tangled this way - irrespective of where the law stands.

      So, one question that may get asked in an interview/trial period is what trade restraints you have from your last job. A restrictive one could signal aggression from the former company. They may decide to choose some other candidate instead.

      Now, I can foresee some here are going to say "So just don't tell them even if they ask, since it is not enforceable anyway". For some of us, this is not an option. So the best is not to sign such a contract.

  • holdenmg on 27/01/2017 - 11:22
    +1

    There is a reason that most workplaces have a sign that says EXIT like this: http://cliparts.co/cliparts/di9/K9g/di9K9gzxT.gif

    In your case, you might elect to do what this signs suggests, whether there is smoke and sirens or not.

  • doctordv8 on 27/01/2017 - 11:29

    Welcome to the real world. Yes real strict contracts can and do happen, and occasionally for good reason. Training you may cost mega bucks, so losing you to the opposition or starting in competition has real time issues. My military & trade training over 4 years was costed at over $100000 in the late 70's for example. Intellectual and proprietary rights are a minefield.

    I wish I had some of these conditions available to me when I was hiring in Darwin 25 yrs ago. The drugs, the booze, the lazy, a lack of quality team players was a real problem, and this type on contract would of scared most of the freaks away, but I did get great members eventually by a handshake on terms.

    This is a very strict contract, but talk to them, ask and have it explained throughly to your understanding and satisfaction. As advised negotiate as well.

    As advised get that lawful advise too, it may be over the top, but still, it may be adjusted and you still end up with the position.

    Sounds a like a business with much more to it than given in the original post, reading between the lines.

    • zine21 on 27/01/2017 - 13:03
      +2

      But they're not training me in any form nor are they paying for it. They want me to cover the cost of any training that I may want. I don't need training as such but the government does require professional development so Id have to do certain hours of it

      • taoz on 27/01/2017 - 22:12

        don't take the job, not sure why you are even considering it with all these questions

      • lisamacoz on 28/01/2017 - 18:47

        It is odd that they expect you to pay for the training and relocation of your office. I couldn't work in my field for two years because of specialized training I had but my company paid for all of my training. They could decide you need 50k of their classes and you pay for it? Definitely see a lawyer.

  • peterpeterpumpkin on 27/01/2017 - 11:43
    +1

    Except under special circumstances, I don't think any court in Australia would hold up a non-compete contract that specified more than 12 months in non-compete restrictions for an entry-level position. If they terminated you or reduced your job responsibilities significantly, the court may even reduce this restrictive period further, especially if your freedom of employment benefits "the greater good" and doesn't significantly threaten the original business (e.g. http://workplaceinfo.com.au/recruitment/problems-and-challen…). However, the reality is you might not have the money or determination to defend yourself in court.

    It seems unfair you should have to hire an employment lawyer for your first job. I wonder if the Fairwork Ombudsman can give contractual advice. Interestingly, California has long banned such clauses (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/ban-restrictive-non-compete-cl…).

  • apple2016 on 27/01/2017 - 11:48
    +3

    I can't work within 20k radius of any of their offices for 5 yrs nor can I see any of my clients or work with any of my colleges after I stop working for them.

    This is against fair work rules. But again I am not an expert on this.

    I will also have no right over any of my intellectual property as it auto belongs to the company.

    This is true for most companies.

  • picklewizard on 27/01/2017 - 15:36
    +1

    I can't work within 20k radius of any of their offices for 5 yrs nor can I see any of my clients or work with any of my colleges after I stop working for them

    LOL, okay then… so you pretty much cannot work in the same city?

    Yeah mate walk away from this one; if they're trying to put this one past you (which they are unlikely to try to enforce, and also not allowed to) they'll try a lot more, too.

    • syousef on 28/01/2017 - 08:53
      +2

      "You'll never work in this town again!" haha

  • blitz on 27/01/2017 - 16:21
    +5

    Its 25 pages of really detailed clause and their rights to basically remove my rights and most of them doesn't sit right with me

    It's your decision to sign it, OP. From experience, in my opinion there is nothing more liberating than turning down a good salary on principle.

  • ItsMeAgro on 27/01/2017 - 16:35
    +4

    A few points:

    • Companies will often deliberately add restrictions they can't legally enforce, to stop you trying to go after them over something that you actually could. That's not necessarily a red flag, but…

    • 25 pages is insane, can't-work-within-20kms etc is insane. So it sounds a bit beyond that, honestly. Maybe it's a crappy job designed to exploit young people who don't know any better? Is it offering 50% more pay than similar jobs?

    • zine21 on 27/01/2017 - 16:48
      +2

      that is what I'm thinking too. They probably thought Id just sign it without paying too much attention to it since its a long and very complicated looking document with terminology that is pretty much foreign to me and most people in this field.

      And no they're not paying me much more then the competition. I was interested in this job due to its location. I have better offers interstate.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 27/01/2017 - 22:40
        +6

        I have better offers interstate.

        Make that abundantly clear when you negotiate.

  • bluesky on 27/01/2017 - 19:57
    +2

    Best to walk away, if the company has this mentality - that they have corporate lawyers, and they can put unreasonable terms in the contract. Who knows how they will behave later?

    Some of what is in the contract may not be enforceable, but still… And if you try to get a lawyer and negotiate the contract, just watch the to and fro between lawyers, you can be a lot out of pocket before you even start the job.

  • Donaldhump on 27/01/2017 - 22:52

    cant work within 20km of their offices.
    how the frick can they enforce that…. only kim yong un can enforce that one

  • Hardlyworkin on 27/01/2017 - 23:21
    +1

    Are you otherwise keen on the job?

    As others have noted above, it seems a lot of the content would be a stretch to enforce in court. Unless you leave and take their ideas/property/clients and use that to your advantage.

    Would the work you are performing by covered by an award or are you earning less than 138k? If no to both then you still have access to unfair dismissal (provided you're not on a fixed term contract)once you've been there 6 months (or 12 if a small business).

    I think you should question them more on the 'on call' situation, where it's common in some roles, your typical 9 to 5 not so, ask them in what situations you will be expected to work after hours.

    There are so many contracts out there with clearly incorrect info on them that are only useful for toilet paper…. and that includes ones written by lawyers. I see different contracts every other day, I'm always quite surprised when there isn't anything incorrect in them.

    If it were me, I would bluff them. Tell them you have read over the contract and ask if this was written by an IR lawyer as you have found a few clauses that have no basis to be enforced and you are surprised they actually put them in there. Tell them you know full well clauses x, y and z are pointless.

  • OldSchoolHarry on 28/01/2017 - 02:42
    +2

    Take the contract to a lawyer or any governing body in your field. For example, say you are a member of Professionals Australia and you are an engineer, Professionals Australia people will have a look at your contract and will guide you about what's reasonable and what's not.

  • [Deactivated] on 28/01/2017 - 07:54
    +2

    You do realise that in your first 6 months of probation you can leave any time you like.

    I would go for the job - see what it's like - get money out of these people - and if I didn't like it - I would leave within the first 6 months.

    Try to figure out if any of those clauses are enforceable if you haven't passed probation yet.

    And in any case - there is no way they will be able to enforce you working for a competitor nearby I've jumped ship before - no-one has the time or money to run around policing it and there are laws preventing companies from doing that anyway.

    Alternatively - strike out parts of the contract you're not happy with and sign it and bring it in and if they have any issues just walk away.

    You're not in a situation whereby they have any kind of hold on you and even when you work for someone always keep that in mind - that you can walk away at any time with notice.

  • syousef on 28/01/2017 - 08:54
    +1

    They are acting like they own you before they hire you. Unless you need this job desperately, run!

  • chumbucket on 28/01/2017 - 09:04
    +6

    This is something that they typically warn about in uni. Had a lecture from a guest speaker (albeit from a union) a few years back about your working rights and what not.
    Their suggestion was to join a union where they have in house specialists that deal with contracts such as this all the time. They do not charge to overview contracts so long as you are a member of their union.
    If your're a fresh graduate you may still be able to use their student membership option (not 100% on this)
    http://www.professionalsaustralia.org.au/ (The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists & Managers, Australia: formally APESMA)

    Regardless, this may be alot cheaper than consulting your own lawyer, and they could probably offer advise that you might not find here in a general forum.

    • CheapCoffee on 28/01/2017 - 09:30

      Yes. I received a similar advice when I was graduating as well. Professional Australia can read through your contract and see if there are things outside the ordinary for your field.

      I can't work within 20k radius of any of their offices for 5 yrs nor can I see any of my clients or work with any of my colleges after I stop working for them

      This is actually fairly standard clause in my field; I guess 20km is a bit wide especially if you are in a larger city - My contract says 10km. Anyway I would imagine it is bloody hard to enforce it.

      The other clauses sound a bit iffy though.

  • [Deactivated] on 28/01/2017 - 10:09
    +1

    Walk away
    seems like too much drama for a job

  • sjobeck on 28/01/2017 - 10:59
    +1

    What sort of appointment is it? Salaried or contractual per hour or percentage of billings?

    Is it in the public healthcare sector?

    • zine21 on 28/01/2017 - 11:33

      its percentage.

      • StewBalls on 28/01/2017 - 12:19
        +1

        Ouch, keep on walking then…

        Don't bother going contractor for your first job; sure if you're savvy you can make good coin as a sole trader, but that level is most likely down the track a bit for you, professionally speaking; kicking off a career effectively running your own show business wise is too much hassle IME…save yourself for a proper employed/salaried position and concentrate on building your clinical/professional skills first.

  • darkchoc on 28/01/2017 - 11:00
    +1

    Don't judge a company or a job opportunity solely by their contract… Cross out the clauses you don't like and negociate study, travel allowances, office moves.

    It sounds like the contract was drafted by someone they doesn't understand the national employment standards that apply to almost everyone:

    http://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment/national-employment-st…

    What industry are you in? You're also covered by modern awards.

    Lastly, look to how willing they are too help you.

    Good luck

  • BucketsJackson on 28/01/2017 - 11:48

    What medical field is thus? I've seen somewhat similar clauses in some physiotherapy contracts

    • StewBalls on 28/01/2017 - 12:21

      Yeah, smells like Allied Health to me too…

  • [Deactivated] on 28/01/2017 - 12:02
    +1

    Join a union

  • [Deactivated] on 28/01/2017 - 12:17

    For this contract to be enforceable it needs a "Remedy" section. This is basically what would happen if you breached any of their restrictions.
    If it is not there, it is un-enforceable.

  • WT on 28/01/2017 - 13:43

    I had a contract like this once, it was basically BS and wouldnt hold up in court so I signed it. I later found out it was from microsoft with a few things changed to suit.

  • Sammy901 on 28/01/2017 - 14:22
    +1

    Sounds like a dental position with one of the dental corporations

  • farknos on 28/01/2017 - 14:53
    +1

    do you really want to work for a company that provides this sort of contract?
    run for the hills.

  • happydude on 28/01/2017 - 15:08

    Is this an employee contract or are you a contractor? i.e do you need to get an ABN

  • phrank on 28/01/2017 - 15:14

    Please keep us updated on what ends up happening. I'm probably going to be in a similar situation in the future. I'm currently in the public sector so I didn't have to worry about these BS clauses.

    The 20 km radius is pretty ridiculous. I'm not sure if it's actually enforceable, but if it is, you could be excluded from working in all capital cities in Australia, depending on where their current and future offices are. I've heard of people reducing the exclusion radius by negotiation so you could try that.

    Be careful - it seems like there are lots of grads, not many jobs, and enough people that are happy to take advantage of grads.

    Have you tried asking your professional association for advice? As a graduate, you're probably already a member.

  • canyoudoitcheaper on 28/01/2017 - 17:45

    Stuff like reasonable restraint of trade and intellectual property are pretty standard, but some of the other stuff sounds silly/ unenforceable. Why would you expect them to pay for your training?!

    • [Deactivated] on 29/01/2017 - 01:00

      Stuff like reasonable restraint of trade and intellectual property are pretty standard

      I see several other people making similar statements above … but are they really standard for grad roles? I haven't really encountered them in grad contracts. How much could a grad possibly pick up in the first 1-3 years?

      Further, the absence of a restraint of trade in an employment contract clause doesn't give you free reign to do whatever you like. There's still lots of legal avenues available to former employers to pursue you for stealing intellectual property infringement, stealing clients, etc.

      • canyoudoitcheaper on 29/01/2017 - 02:43

        A lot of grad roles these days at large professional firms will have some form of confidentiality and/or restraint clause. It really depends what industry you're in. However, what the OP is talking about, ie. the 20k exclusion, does seem a bit OTT.

  • netsurfer on 28/01/2017 - 19:02

    Contracts are generally worded to the company's benefit (because it was done by the company's lawyer). You can certainly negotiate.

    • Cannot work with 20K of any office after you left the company: that's ridiculous. If they have an office in the CBD, you cannot work in CBD for 5 years? I don't think that clause can be enforced.
    • Cannot see any client after you left the company -> that's a common clause company put in. Basically, they don't want you to take any client away from the company. I don't see that being a big deal unless it is a very small industry with only a handful of clients. 5 years is too long though. I doubt this can be enforced either.
    • Pay for your own professional training -> if the pay is good, this clause is no big deal. Your professional training cost is tax deductible anyway. It's not like you spend weeks in training every year.
    • Intellectual property belongs to the company -> that is normal too. They pay you, they own the IP.
    • 4 weeks notice without giving a reason -> though it sounds bad, it is not really a big deal. If the company doesn't want you, the company can come up with a reason to terminate your contract. It isn't the reason that's important, it is the notice period. 4 weeks is standard.

    If your job is a contract based job, some of the clauses are not too surprising (especially if it is a US based company). Try to have them remove the ridiculous ones. However, quite a number of them are no big deal to be honest. Also, unless they are paying you a huge amount of money and you really decide to do some very dodgy stuff, there is no point for them to sue you.

  • Skramit on 28/01/2017 - 21:14
    +3

    Wow maccas contracts sound detailed these days.

    • StewBalls on 28/01/2017 - 21:34
      +6

      They don't want you taking your unique skill set across the road to Hungry Jacks.

  • [Deactivated] on 28/01/2017 - 21:35
    +1

    OP - if you turn down the job, name and shame.

    I've seen lots of contracts from big banks, insurers, big 4 accounting, management consulting companies and never come across a 25 page contract for a grad job. <5 pages is the standard.

    It sounds like your potential employer isn't a large corporate, but there's no reason for them to be that heavy handed.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/01/2017 - 01:05
      +5

      I doubt Chelsea Manning contract with the US army was 25 pages!

      • adante on 29/01/2017 - 02:01
        +2

        what a hilariously spectacularly oblique reference. +1

  • Tech5 on 29/01/2017 - 03:55

    Are you in a medical related field, OP?

    • zine21 on 29/01/2017 - 09:40

      yes. Is this common/standard for that ?

      • Tech5 on 29/01/2017 - 14:42

        Most of it is standard, including the restraint of trade, intellectual property, all pt records. Read up ^^^ on what I wrote about restraint of trade.

        CPD is up to the employer, some offer a few thousand per year for that.

        If you are working for a corporation, then the moving clause is quite standard. But I have never seen anyone be moved.

        In terms of being unable to see your pt's, they can't enforce it unless you actively solicit them.

        The only weird one is the on call clause, but depends which field you are in.

  • Pratty on 29/01/2017 - 08:25
    +1

    This is what I imagine the contract being for GPs who sign up to the Primary group of medical centres. Corporate juggernaut.

  • cybapete on 29/01/2017 - 08:25

    and this is before you even start the job! imagine what they will do to you once you are working for them
    if it was me i would run far and run fast

  • dealaholic on 29/01/2017 - 09:00
    +2

    Contracts are legal documents, so don’t let the formality itself put you off.

    Relocation: This is standard in most contracts. Although I don’t know what industry you work in, I don’t see it as being good practice to uproot an employee who doesn't want to move, so I don’t think you should be too worried if you don’t want to relocate. You paying for the relocation is just wrong - this is a business expense. To some degree, most companies would pay for you and your family to relocate.

    Work hours: Expectations varies from role to role, industry to industry. I’d want the contract to reflect the agreed work hours. This doesn't mean you should be inflexible during your employment; we mostly all work overtime and you may need to cover colleague's leave or be contactable in urgent situations, but this can be agreed when the time arises and the contract should not imply that you will be on call 24/7 if this wasn't agreed.

    Termination: A four week notice period is normal in most contracts. This notice period applies for you either you or the business terminating the contract. But, the business needs grounds to terminate you, which should be listed in the contract. Generally this is either redundancy or performance management e.g. poor behaviour, for the later there is a formal process the business must follow, so they can’t do this on a whim. If they did, you could claim unfair dismissal – so you do have right to seek remedy.

    Non-compete: If a non-compete clause is seen to be harsh and unreasonable, as yours sounds to be given you’re entry level, it will usually be thrown in court if the company contests it. Yours sounds ridiculous, something that might be applied to a senior executive in the sales area of a business. I’d want this changed.

    Intellectual property: The company is paying you to generate ideas and work, so they own the work you produce.

    Training costs: I think it’s unreasonable for a company to expect staff to pay for their training, especially when it comes to mandatory training. This does happen though and I expect the company won't budge on this. Although you can claim the cost of on tax, it should be a business expense to have staff adequately skilled to do their job. Then there’s the extra benefit of training and development. This would be a no deal for me. But weigh up the cost of the training sessions and how this affects you financially.

    25 pages: Sounds almost 3x longer than any contract I've dealt with.

    Your rights: A company cannot use a contract to sign your rights away. Regardless of what’s included in a contract, your employment rights and standards are covered by legislation.

    Solicitor’s fees: This might infer that if you want to have the contract amended, and they need to have it checked by a solicitor, they can pass the fee onto you. This would be a no deal for me. The adjustments you’re asking are reasonable and you probably shouldn’t have to actually ask for them to be made.

    The contract makes the company sound shady, but not knowing the industry and role, it’s hard to determine if it could be the norm. The company sounds like penny pinchers. At the end of the day if you don’t like to job or company you can leave. You have a 1 weeks’ notice period within the first six months and then four weeks thereafter, so you’re never stuck in a role. But, it’s better to not be in that position, so I’d tread carefully.

    In addition to location, have you considered the actual work you’ll be doing, the company’s profile and brand, leadership within the company etc? Or how will this job set you up for your career and life goals?

    Good luck with this career move. Let us know what happens.

    • zine21 on 29/01/2017 - 10:05
      +1

      First off thanks for the detailed response.

      Knowing I can't sign away my rights feels better but having said that, I don't think it would be wise for me to place my self in a position where I have signed such a thing in the first place.

      unfair dismissal- I'm pretty sure the contract is trying to ensure I won't ever go after them with that as it specifically says I can't claim for damages or compensation when/if they end the contract. The fact that they may not be able to enforce such things but decided to keep it in their contract shows me I have to be careful when dealing with the company.

      I'm in the medical field. Technically they're not paying me to generate ideas for the company (I wouldn't call patient treatment plans ideas as such).

      So far I haven't really dealt with a large company before this one, so the offers I had were from private, small locations with 1-2 pages of regular salary details, work hours, expectations from the employee (professionalism/ confidentiality stuff) and they're responsibility towards me - to ensure my requests were addressed. But in this contract it was all about them - their rights. And how I don't have rights over certain things. Some are not that important but I still don't like how its worded.

      Now I'm a new grad so maybe people can correct me if I'm wrong but it seems pretty ridiculous for the employee to be responsible for the expenses of a move that THEY decided on. I mean personal expenses related to the move sure but the companies expenses ? how is that my responsibility. Why should I pay to move a clinic, I don't own the business.

      Even the training part is off to me. Most places pay for this as the hours are enforced by the government to ensure further development rather than a need for the training it self. It benefits the company as well, and if they're running these courses or programs why not offer it to their employees. The fact that they wrote on a contract that their employees would be paying the same amount as a non-employee for any training they provide kind of shows their loyalty.

      Trust is more important than money. I don't want to look behind my back every second and I would have entered politics or the army or a business field if I wanted this in my life so I don't think I'm going to take it.

      • Lord Fart Bucket on 29/01/2017 - 17:34

        Even the training part is off to me. Most places pay for this

        True… though i just attended a training course that cost my boss more than $5K. If i was to walk out next week and take my newly acquired skills with me, without reimbursing the employer, you'd understand that they run a massive risk.

        It's give and take, IMHO. But go with your gut. It's usually right.

      • happydude on 29/01/2017 - 17:46
        +1

        Knowing I can't sign away my rights feels better

        You're rights depend on what sort of contract this is. Are they employing you as an independent contractor or an actually employee?

        You mentioned you would be paying GST which makes me think you are signing up to an independent contractor relationship. If that is the case then a lot of the advice people have given you will be not applicable.

        • cybapete on 01/02/2017 - 17:24

          i thought there was some policy to define employees & contractors because some companies were just taking employees and signing them up as contractors to dodge paying them entitlements

  • goodcopbadcop on 31/01/2017 - 18:46

    Having had a recent experience where clauses in the contract bothered me - where they have tried to bully me into just accepting it eg they only have to give me 4 weeks notice but I have to give 13 weeks (3 months) notice; and a few other things that I queried a the time but they refused to change - I would not accept the job. You said that you had a couple of other positions. Consider the other ones carefully and compare - because what this company has serviced up is ridiculous as far as an employment contract goes - 25 pages that is outrageous. If they are like this now - when they are at their best - trying to entice you to come and work for them - once the shine wears off and the honeymoon period is over - then they will be worse than ever I suspect. And you will feel trapped because you can't re-negotiate once it is signed they would be expecting at least 2 good years on those terms and conditions.

  • PVA on 31/01/2017 - 18:52
    +1

    contact fair work australia or your union and have it looked at.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join