Does a Company Handbook effectively constitute an extension to the Employment Contract In my employment contract it is stated (in so many words1) that I must adhere to the rules set out in the company handbook. Does this make the handbook an extension of the contract? Out of which follows: Would breaking a rule in the handbook constitute breach of contract? Does my employer's updating the handbook constitute a unilateral change of contract? Locale is UK but (I assume) contract law is pretty universal so answers specific to any region are welcome. 1I do not have the contract in front of me and going from memory.
Would breaking a rule in the handbook constitute breach of contract? Generally speaking, yes. Of course, most employment contracts are "at will" so a breach of contract often isn't necessary to terminate employment. Does my employer's updating the handbook constitute a unilateral change of contract? It depends upon what is changed in the update to the handbook. Typically an employment contract would have a term that says something to the effect of "employee shall devote his full time effort to perform the duties he is directed to perform by employer in a satisfactory manner." If the employee handbook says, "part of every employee's duties includes cleaning up his work area at the close of business each day, locking his file cabinets and shutting down his computer", this would typically simply be a definition of the duties of the employee which the employer reserved the right to change in the original employment contract, and not a unilateral change of contract. On the other hand, if the employee handbook says, "vacation days may not be taken during December" when the employee's contract simply said that "you have ten vacation days per year", that might constitute a unilateral change of contract which might not be enforceable for an employee with a fixed term of employment who was not an employee at will, without additional consideration. Locale is UK but (I assume) contract law is pretty universal so answers specific to any region are welcome. I have answered based upon general contract and employment law, but the UK frequently sets mandatory standards for different kinds of contracts and modifies common law rules related to contracts (much more so than the U.S.), so it wouldn't be very surprising if this were modified by a statute of which I am not aware. We have UK lawyers who contribute to Law.SE and they can chime in if there are particular statutes in the UK that apply to this question.
Yes, your clause specifically limits you to only working for COMPANY, even in your off time. Canada does not have a law protecting your right to work secondary jobs (moonlighting) in your off-duty hours. This means that any contract clause specifically limiting you to work with the employer only is valid, and breaking it is cause for justified dismissal. Based on this, do I need to ask for explicit permission to work on such projects? Yes, you will need to disclose any potential &quot;business or occupation whatsoever&quot;. You could play contract games by saying &quot;it's only a hobby&quot; or &quot;it doesn't make any money&quot;, but you will be opening yourself up to issues. The best thing to do is to disclose your project to your employer and get in writing their permission to work on it with specific terms that you will not be using company time or resources in any way. See: Patterson V. Bank of Nova Scotia
No, a penalty clause is illegal, end of story. A contract could include a &quot;liquidated damages&quot; clause – this is how late fees are legal – that if you breach the contract in a certain way, you will compensate the company for the damage that you have done (bookkeeping, interest on money owed) in a standard and reasonable manner. Incidentally, what you describe is slavery, which is illegal throughout the US. The closest you could get is if the company offers a benefit for staying with the company for some period of time, then the employee might forego that benefit if they don't fulfill that aspect of the contract.
Does B have a legal obligation to inform A that changes were made to the document? This is definitely not a simple yes-no question. One ought to consider not only the tenets of contract law, but also notions of equity and of public policy. On the one hand, courts acknowledge modified contracts that result from a battle of the forms. On the other hand, sliding changes in the contract without adequately directing the counterparty's attention to them tends to contravene the contract law covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In the scenario you outline, imagine the inefficiency and risk of mistake if the parties engage in several rounds of offers and counter-offers by sliding changes scattered all over the latest draft of a contract (this is totally feasible, especially as laws nowhere limit the number of times a party can make a counter-offer). Unless each party is conspicuous about his latest changes to the contract, the dynamics can easily become a matter of which party inadvertently binds himself to unacceptably detrimental clauses (some of which might re-occur after being stricken in a previous draft). This hinders the contract law prerequisite that a contract be entered knowingly and willfully. Although the parties are responsible for reading the contract, subjecting the offeror/offeree to devote valuable resources each time a newly altered contract goes from one direction to the other seems contrary to public policy. Furthermore, that defeats the purpose of negotiations and of the prior efforts each party spent toward the contract (such as valuations and risk analysis). I'm just curious to understand what legally prevents this type of things from happening in general. An offer may include language to the effect of accepting the contract 'as is'. See the provision in the Uniform Commercial Code (for instance, see MCL 440.2207(2)(a)) whereby alterations are precluded "[if] the offer expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer". The aforementioned statute also precludes terms which significantly alter the contract. See MCL 440.2207(2)(b). In a context of loan contracts --apropos of your example--, a borrower's unilateral alteration of the interest rate, of payment schedules, etc. constitute material alterations. Indeed, financial institutions are utmost sensitive to changes in interest rates and the timing of cash flows. Even in the case of an offeree's immaterial alterations of a contract, an offeror might prevail under principles of equity. This is more evident in the case of entities which enter and manage a multitude of contracts simultaneously, be it via contracts of adhesion or upon negotiations with each counterparty. In line with my point on public policy, the additional cost of filtering a counterparty's last minute occurrences would make it impossible for economies of scale to develop.
It is very unlikely that such a sentence (&quot;A 6 month non-compete/solicitation is required&quot;) is enforceable, because it is way too broad. The reasonable interpretation of the sentence is that the employer has thereby put the employee on notice that such an agreement will be required, and the actual terms of that agreement will be spelled out at that time, but that sentence does not constitute an &quot;agreement&quot;. Ad actual agreement has to be supported by consideration, and have a reasonable scope (including place and activities). Texas law disfavors restrictions on job-changing, so an agreement would have to go beyond just saying that &quot;a non-compete is required&quot;. Since the letter asserts that it is not a contract, there is no clear contractual obligation (they can fire you anytime they want, it seems).
There is no fixed definition in the law of &quot;outside activities&quot; that is applied generally. This will depend entirely on how the employment agreement defines it, and/or how the management of your company defines it. There may be a useful definition in the agreement, ideally there will be. In the far too common case that the agreement leaves this key term undefined, you will have to ask them how they define it. While it is true legally that when they draft the contract and it is ambiguous, you may adopt any reasonable definition, as a practical matter, if you do not disclose something and they consider it an &quot;outside activity&quot; They may claim this is grounds for discharge. If the employment contract requires you to disclose outside activities, you must disclose them or be in breach of that contract, which is surely grounds for discharge, and possibly grounds for a breach of contract suit. Even if it is not part of the contract, saying that you have no such activities when you in fact do is arguably fraud. Saying that you decline to inform management of your outside activities is probably legal, but might well cause them to cancel the offer of employment. If you do inform management, and the activities are approved, there would be no automatic transfer of any existing IP rights. No transfer could occur without an agreement saying so. Some companies, in their employment agreements (or other related agreements) demand that an employee transfer the IP of any project created or worked on using company resources (such as a company computer or network). Some demand a transfer for any project worked on during the employee's working hours. Some demand a transfer for any project done during the period of employment, but they must clearly specify this for it to be effective. That last is unusual, because many employees dislike it enough to go elsewhere as soon as they can, which tends to be bad for the employer. But in no case can a transfer of IP for a project unrelated to the employer's business, not using company equipment or resources, and not done during work hours, be effective without a specific agreement to this effect.
A distinction has to be made between incompetent and unsatisfactory. Beware defamation laws, when you accuse someone of being professionally incompetent. Poor communication is not grounds for breaching a contract. It is not entirely obvious that your P30s problem is a breach of contract on the accountant's part – it might be, depends on what the contract says. You should hire an attorney to scrutinize the contract, as well as looking into the question of the accountant's duty to you as a customer. It might turn out that the accountant has been negligent, or you may have higher expectations than you contracted for. But you might have grounds to sue the accountant in which case terminating the contract would be preferable (from the accountant's perspective).
An oral contract is (usually) entirely legally binding (exceptions include things like land sales). Written notes do not change that. The important thing about nearly contemporaneous notes is that if the contract runs into difficulty and you need to litigate, they are likely to be accepted by a court as good evidence of what was agreed. They will be much more difficult for the other party to challenge later (they can be challenged now of course - which is part of why they are considered good evidence of what was agreed).