Employer wants 2 years worth of bonus back

[Tiffanygirl]

Hi
It's a small company and recently our director changed the terms of the contract, one of the terms is that if you resign you have to pay back your two last annual bonuses.
Is that even legal?
We haven't signed our contracts yet. What can we do in this situation?
Thanks

 

[lesliedocherty]

Don't sign, even if you did, not sure he can,and if you haven't signed he can't, sounds mental, and its always a small business ffs

 

[Newchodge]

Put in writing that you do not accept the proposed contract changes and wish to retain your existing contract. You could also make a counter proposal that, after you have been continuously employed for 1 year the bonus rate will double every year. You have as much right to insist on that clause (ie no right) as he has to insist on his repayment clause.

 

[dotcomdude]

I’d guess that this could be ruled to be an unfair term in the contract, but your director is relying on people complying without it being decided in court.

If you don’t sign, you will still be deemed to have accepted it unless you make clear your objection as Cyndy says...

 

[NnamAries]

When you initially started working for him, did you sign a particular number of years one is supposed to work before the person can consider resigning????

If you did not then this his new policy does not apply because it is not legally binding.

 

[AlanJ1]

When you initially started working for him, did you sign a particular number of years one is supposed to work before the person can consider resigning????

Is this even legal? I haven;t heard of someone signing a contract for more than a year before and never for someone to commit to say 5 years before they can leave. Changes of personal circumstances can come out of nowhere and you may have to leave a job.

 

[Newchodge]

Oh and join a union today. This is not a good employer and you will need union support at some time.

 

[ecommerce84]

Cyndys advice above about refusing in writing would be what I could do.

It might be worth informing your colleagues that is what you intend to do as well. Strength in numbers etc.

 

[Jasondb]

I heard of something like this being mooted to prevent bank traders making short term profits that would cause long term losses. A bit like the sub-prime fiasco of investments. I don't know if this initiative ever got off the ground.
Tiffany girl is your employer working with financial investments?

 

[Newchodge]

To be honest, if the clause were in the contract from the start of employment it would probably be valid. It is the fact it is being imposed after the event that causes the problem.

 

[Tiffanygirl]

Thanks to everyone, who relied.
This decision has nothing to do with short term gain, it applies to all the employees like secretary, for example.
We do not have any union, and HR is outsourced, they implied they are HR for employers, not employees. So we don't really have much choice it seems. No one is happy, but as usual, people are scared to rock the boat, ruin relationship with bosses and lose the case anyway...

 

[tony84]

If you leave, tell them to FO (the O stands for off).
Even if they threaten court, they still have to win in court.

But it is probably not a bad idea to send an email to say you are not happy with the new terms and are rejecting the alteration to them. Maybe try and get everyone else to do something similar.

Also for the bankers comments, my understanding was that they were changing when a bonus was paid - it had to be based on long term profits rather than short term profits. So your bonus may be paid on deals you did in 2016 rather than December.

Alternatively, when you want to leave go in and call your boss a bell end and tell them you may or may not have spat in his/her brews for the last 6 months... see if they sack you. At least you are not resigning

 

[STDFR33]

Thanks to everyone, who relied.
This decision has nothing to do with short term gain, it applies to all the employees like secretary, for example.
We do not have any union, and HR is outsourced, they implied they are HR for employers, not employees. So we don't really have much choice it seems. No one is happy, but as usual, people are scared to rock the boat, ruin relationship with bosses and lose the case anyway...

You do have a choice. You do not have to sign the new contract. Without a new contract in place, the terms of your employment are as per your old contract of employment.

You can still join a union.

 

[Tiffanygirl]

You do have a choice. You do not have to sign the new contract. Without a new contract in place, the terms of your employment are as per your old contract of employment.

You can still join a union.

How does it work with the union? If we do not have one at work, do we need to set one up? Or is there some place where we could join? Sorry, I'm not sure how it works.
In my previous workplace we had a union withing the company, but here we don't have.
Thanks!

 

[Scalloway]

Official advice about joining a union.

https://www.gov.uk/join-trade-union

 

[Newchodge]

You do have a choice. You do not have to sign the new contract. Without a new contract in place, the terms of your employment are as per your old contract of employment.

You can still join a union.

Just not signing is not enough. You must formally refuse it.

 

[Jasondb]

My thoughts if you are secretarial or admin argue your case politely.

If you have a profit making role then that may be something that is becoming industry practise.

Only you can decide if it is worth challenging and potentially losing your job.

 

[Newchodge]

My thoughts if you are secretarial or admin argue your case politely.

If you have a profit making role then that may be something that is becoming industry practise.

Only you can decide if it is worth challenging and potentially losing your job.

Refusing to accept a fundamental change in contract is not a fair reason for dismissal. It amounts to asserting a statutory right. An unfair dismissal claim based on asserting a statutory right is one of the exceptions that does not require 2 years employment before having the right to make a claim.

 

[Jasondb]

Refusing to accept a fundamental change in contract is not a fair reason for dismissal. It amounts to asserting a statutory right. An unfair dismissal claim based on asserting a statutory right is one of the exceptions that does not require 2 years employment before having the right to make a claim.

I agree yet employers may take that action and yet give a different reason for dismissal. I only say this having worked in a corporate with what I have seen as office politics.

 

[Newchodge]

I agree yet employers may take that action and yet give a different reason for dismissal. I only say this having worked in a corporate with what I have seen as office politics.

No shit sherlock. You're not trying to tell me that employers lie? Surely not?

An employer prepared to act in that way would have to explain itself to a tribunal if the employee took that step. Tribunal members have extensive experience of employers lying.

 

[AlanJ1]

If you have a profit making role then that may be something that is becoming industry practise.

I can almost certainly guarantee you it's not becoming industry practice.

 

[Countrymun]

Ask colleagues to join a union with you. The union will probably be happy to put on a meeting away from your workplace if people are worried about being seen attending. And union membership is confidential - pay by direct debit rather than payroll.