I have been reviewing a new employment contract for a full time role. This is for consulting role for which I will be working on a number of client facing projects. They have however highlighted one specific project that they wish for me to work on as an employee. It is no different to the other client facing projects - apart from the fact that the work is for an associated entity of the employer. Many of the standard employment clauses have been adjusted to capture the project of this other associated entity. They appear to be casting a wider net contractually - in particular around IP, confidentiality, restraint of trade and termination etc. The scope of what I will do on that project has not been formally agreed yet.
The "Background" section of the contract frames the project in the following way:
"It is envisaged that, from Commencement, you will be appointed to a project for the benefit of XXX being an associated entity of the Employer. "
I know they are extremely keen for me to work on the project. And this specific project would be handled like any other project that they are hiring me to consult on.
It seems odd to pull in a special project into the mix of an employment contract and try to envelope the clauses to cover two entities. I was wondering if this might be an over stretch contractually?
Any thoughts?
The "Background" section of the contract frames the project in the following way:
"It is envisaged that, from Commencement, you will be appointed to a project for the benefit of XXX being an associated entity of the Employer. "
I know they are extremely keen for me to work on the project. And this specific project would be handled like any other project that they are hiring me to consult on.
It seems odd to pull in a special project into the mix of an employment contract and try to envelope the clauses to cover two entities. I was wondering if this might be an over stretch contractually?
Any thoughts?
