problems in contracts of employment. - the pda · pharmacists, pre-reg’s, locums and primary care...
TRANSCRIPT
Dealing with,and overcomingproblems incontracts ofemployment.
A special publication by the PDA
The Pharmacists’ Defence Association,
The Old Fire Station,
69 Albion Street,
Birmingham.
B1 3EA
Contact information
general enquiries 0121 694 7000
incident reporting 0121 694 7007
fax 0121 694 7001
web www.the-pda.org
email [email protected]
2. 3.
Dealing with, and overcoming problems in contracts of employment
The purpose of this publication
This publication is intended as a guide to all pharmacists who are employed undera written contract of employment, or as self-employed locums working under acontract for services. This may include community, hospital or PCT employedpharmacists, Pre-reg’s, locums and Primary Care Pharmacists. Based on ‘reallife’ situations in which the PDA has been involved, it contains sample employmentclauses which have caused problems or have resulted in disputes betweenemployees or locums and employers which the Pharmacists’ Defence Associationhas had to deal with in the past. In highlighting problem clauses and also insuggesting approaches that may be taken by employees or locums, it is hopedthat this guide, will assist pharmacists by helping them avoid or at least minimiseproblem employment clauses in the future.
THE PHARMACISTS’ DEFENCE ASSOCIATION
The Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA) is a not for profit organisation whoseaim is to act upon and support the needs of individual pharmacists and, whennecessary, to defend their reputation. At the time of printing of this publication(June 2005) PDA had more than 10,000 members.
The primary aims of the PDA are to:
• Support pharmacists in their legal, practice and employment needs. • Provide insurance cover to safeguard and defend the reputation of the individual
pharmacist. • Proactively seek to influence the professional, practice and employment agenda
to support members. • Lead and support initiatives designed to improve the knowledge and skills of
pharmacists in managing risk and safe practices, so improving patient care. • Work with like-minded organisations to further improve the membership benefits
to individual pharmacists.
More information on the PDA is available on the website www.the-pda.org or telephone 0121 694 7000.
Index.
Clause No.: Page No.:
Changing employment contracts mid employment
Changing the usual place of work
Changing the usual hours of work
Notice periods
Working solely and exclusively for one employer
Restrictions on working after termination of employment
Locums and their contractual rights
Confidentiality requirements
Placing onerous professional responsibility on employees
Out of hours pharmacy provision
Responsibility for failures in staff training
Indemnifying the employer for wrongly endorsed prescriptions
Terms aimed at avoiding employment liabilities
Employees responsible for remitting their own PAYE
to the exchequer
Carrying PI insurance and indemnifying the employer
The legal position on selling a pharmacy and transferring the staff
to the new owner
Working times, days off and holidays
Retention of services after registration as a pharmacist
(for Pre-reg’s)
Requirement to take an unpaid break and stay on the premises
4. 5.
Dealing with, and overcoming problems in contracts of employment
find out all about the pda at: www.the-pda.org |
Introduction.
Contracts and the lawDuring the course of 2004, the Pharmacists’ Defence Association dealt with more than 700episodes where pharmacists required help or support as a result of incidents occurring inthe workplace. Considerably more than half of these were episodes where a dispute hadarisen between an employer and an employee or locum. In the majority of these cases, theinvolvement of the PDA secured a satisfactory outcome for the employee (or locum). Insome of these cases, it was possible for the PDA to secure financial compensation in theform of a compromise agreement from employers who had treated their employees unfairlyor illegally and for Locums where their contract had been breached. The amount secured forPDA members during this period was in excess of £150,000.
There is relatively unrestricted freedom to agree contract terms between employees andemployers under UK law, with little statutory interference by government and other regulatorybodies. Successive UK governments have long sought to preserve this position in order tomaintain Britain's perceived lead as an 'employer-friendly' area within the European Union andattract industry and investment to the UK from within the EU and elsewhere. One consequenceof this however has been that in areas where employees have historically had little or norepresentation, or where the workforce tends not to challenge the content of their employmentcontract, the employers have largely been able to dictate terms to those seeking employmentwithin their businesses; this has resulted in a trend towards ever more 'flexible' contract terms(from the employer's point of view), which are frequently to the detriment of employees who (bycontrast) generally prefer well-defined working agreements which give them as much securityfrom unwanted change as possible.
6.
6.
7.
8.
8.
9.
10.
22.
22.
23.
23.
23.
24.
24.
24.
25.
27.
29.
30.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
6. 7.
Dealing with, and overcoming problems in contracts of employment
find out all about the pda at: www.the-pda.org |
Risk Management.Risk Management happens when, after problems occur, their causes are examined andchanges to the system(s) are put into place to prevent their recurrence. The contract incidentsthat occurred during 2004 have been examined and many of their causes have been identified.A synopsis of issues and recommendations is contained in this booklet. Changing the 'balanceof negotiating power' will not happen overnight, but it will certainly help the process ifpharmacists read their contracts and consider the implications of the terms before they agreeto take-on jobs and thereby become bound by them. By studying this booklet, it is hoped thatpharmacists can be forewarned of situations which have led to problems elsewhere. Inparticular, this booklet contains contract clauses or styles of agreement that some employershave tried to persuade their employees to sign up to and in the majority of cases havesucceeded. We believe that subsequently, these clauses have led to serious employmentdisputes. Before any new contracts are signed in the future, pharmacists are urged to ensurethat they do not contain the types of clauses that are highlighted in this booklet.
Problem employment contract clauses1. “The employer may make reasonable changes to this contract upon giving reasonablenotice to the employee, such notice to be given either orally or in writing.”
This term has been appearing in pharmacist contracts of employment with increasing fre-quency. The practical effect of this clause is that it gives an employer carte blanche to makechanges to the basis of the employment agreement at any time it wishes and this can be doneto the detriment of the employee. The reason this can occur is that the employer only then hasto show that the change is 'reasonable' and that the notice to the employee was also 'reason-able' and it has secured whatever change it desires to impose at whatever notice it considers tobe reasonable. By way of example, an employer which has contracted to give two monthsnotice of termination of contract could (by notice the day beforehand) change the notice periodto the statutory minimum, or change the rate of pay with almost immediate effect.
In worst-case scenarios, it would be for the employee to prove it was not reasonable after theemployer had imposed such a change. Such terms should therefore be resisted at all costs andserious consideration should be given to simply refusing to contract on such 'loose' and inse-cure terms.
2. “The employee's usual place of work will be (insert name of Pharmacy) but he / she maybe required to work at other locations within the employers business, as required by theemployer and the needs of the business.”
The effect of this clause is that whilst an employee may consider that their job is fixed at a par-ticular location, the employer may for whatever reason decide that the employee should fromnow on work elsewhere, even though this may be to the detriment of the employee. Indeed, thisclause has even been used by some employers to unsettle an employee so as to bring about aresignation. This clause could require an employee to permanently relocate their work locationeven though this may be many miles away or in a location that is considered to be undesirable.
Suggested approach;Pharmacists who feel that they don’t want to accept this term should simply delete it from thecontract. If this clause is agreeable however, then before agreeing to such a term, pharmacistsmight want to add a 'reasonable' travel distance (or a maximum distance in miles) or they maywant to provide that such a transfer may only be temporary and limit the duration. If the scopeof the clause is not restricted as suggested, then in theory the employer, if it was so inclined ormotivated could ask a pharmacist to work in Exeter instead of Carlisle. The simple rule forpharmacists is that they should seek to secure clarification in writing - define the limits of thetransfer that they are prepared to accept, before it happens, rather than seeking to argue aboutit afterwards.
3. “The employee’s usual hours of work will be (insert details and number of hours)but he / she may be required to work more / less hours / Sundays / Bank holidays asrequired by the employer.”
This term gives employers the flexibility to demand that employees work extra hours when nec-essary and also to reduce the hours worked by the employee. In some situations, even if theemployee has good reason why they cannot work the hours that are being requested of them,the effect of this clause renders the employee in a potential breach of contract.
Suggested approach;If there is concern about this, then pharmacists are, once again urged to negotiate some limitsto the clause, such as maximum extra hours, frequency, removing Bank Holidays, Sundays, etc.
8. 9.
Dealing with, and overcoming problems in contracts of employment
4. “The employee will be entitled to receive a minimum of one week’s notice (or theStatutory minimum, whichever is the less ) from the employer in the event that it wishes toterminate this contract. The employer will be entitled to receive from the employee a min-imum of two calendar months notice in the event that the employee wishes to terminatethis contract.”
This gives the employer a clear advantage over the employee, especially in the first year beforethe full protection of the Employment Rights Act (ERA) comes into effect to protect employeesfrom unfair dismissal. If employees accept this clause then they will be bound by it.
Suggested approach;Many employees will feel that it is unfair to give the employer such an advantage, they shoulddemand the same notice from the employer as it demands from them.
5. “The employee shall be exclusively the servant of the employer and shall at alltimes devote him / herself diligently to all assigned tasks; in particular the employeeshall not without the express permission of the employer be engaged, employed orotherwise involved in the business of any other commercial undertaking either alone orjointly with others. For the avoidance of doubt this restriction shall extend to the hold-ing of offices within other firms or companies, either as director or partner and whetherpaid or unpaid and shall include a prohibition on the holding of shares in any com-pany, provided that it shall be permissible to have a shareholding which does notexceed 5% of the total issued share capital.”
Increasingly employers want to ensure undivided loyalty, total control and ultimately the benefitof the employees full effort on their behalf. Such clauses are appearing in pharmacist employ-ment contracts with increasing regularity. The effect of such a clause is that the pharmacist mustexclusively be the employee of their employer and cannot be involved in any other employedactivities (whether paid or unpaid) without their employers express (usually written) permis-sion. This could prevent pharmacist employees performing any occasional locums elsewhere,or having a part-time evening job in any occupation. In some instances where a pharmacistrequires to earn more income through locum work, employers will try to persuade theiremployee to work as a locum for them, as this is likely to save the employer significant costs ofemploying a genuine self-employed locum. Often the disincentive for the pharmacist is that theymay be forced to work for lower hourly rates than would be available elsewhere, they may notbe able to operate their locum work on a self-employed basis and hence lose their tax advan-tages. PDA has seen examples where employees have been summarily dismissed for breach of
find out all about the pda at: www.the-pda.org |
contract because they have been discovered by their employers to be working as locums intheir spare time. Subsequently, their experience has been publicised by the employer to the restof the workforce to act as a deterrent.
The restrictions on share ownership are designed to allow investment in public companies by way ofa portfolio, but to restrict competition with the employer or the involvement in another business venturevicariously, e.g. by owning another company and letting the running be done by another person.
Suggested approach;There are three ways in which this issue can be handled:
a) Negotiate the whole clause out of the employment contract at the time of taking on the job. Alternatively at the time, when the employer is trying to amend the contract so as to implement the clause.
b) Amend the clause, so as to extract any specific wording which could affect your proposed activity e.g. locum work.
c) Secure the employers permission in writing to allow for work as a locum or for the owningof more shares.
6. “During the period of 12 months following the termination of this employment,whether by notice from the employee, employer or otherwise, the employee shall notwithout the express permission of the employer be engaged, employed or otherwiseinvolved in the business of any other pharmacy or competitive commercial undertakingwithin a radius of 50 miles from the employee’s main place of work. The same restric-tions as in paragraph 5 hereof shall apply to the holding of offices in such businessesas detailed herein before.”
Employers will be fearful of their employees being attracted by other nearby employers and tak-ing with them their knowledge of customer databases, professional contacts (with surgeries forinstance), to the detriment of their business. The result is that many are now seeking to includeterms of this type and some are even going to the lengths of seeking to add them to existingcontracts, without offering to pay a proper or worthwhile fee for the amendment.
Suggested approach;Pharmacists are urged to think carefully before they agree to restrictions of this type; especiallyabout the duration and distance which is involved. It would not be unreasonable to reduce therestriction to say; 3 months and/or 1 mile.
10. 11.
Dealing with, and overcoming problems in contracts of employment
It is important to note that enforcement of a contract, especially after an employee has left is acivil matter and has nothing to do with the criminal law. In practice, even if an employee hassigned such a clause and has subsequently broken it, the ex-employer may not contemplategoing to Court to obtain an injunction to enforce the clause or sue for breach of contract, espe-cially if it can show no damage arising from the non-adherence to it.
There is some degree of legal speculation as to whether this type of restrictive clause is actually enforceable in the event that an ex-employee leaves and chooses to work in the proximity. The view of the PDA is that the more onerous the restriction, the more likely it is thatit will be unenforceable if it was challenged in court. The important thing here is how reasonable is the restriction. For example, it would be very difficult for an employer to enforcea five year, fifty mile restriction on a newly qualified pharmacist who works for an employer forsix months in a large city. However, an employer may stand a much greater chance of enforcing a one year, three mile restriction on a pharmacist who has worked for the employerfor ten years.
It is probably for this reason that at the current time, there are no known attempts by theRPSGB to regard such clauses as a ‘matter of professional conduct’, making breach a professional matter. However, as the Society seeks to become ever more involved in regulatoryactivity, it is conceivable that employers may consider a referral to the Society as an activedeterrent and a cheaper alternative than taking the matter to court.
7. Locums and their contractual rights.
The PDA has dealt with many scenarios whereby Locums feel that they have been treatedunfairly by an ‘employer’ to whom they have been loyal, and yet have (in the Locum’s view)been ‘dropped’ unceremoniously when it so suits.
Locums, except under certain circumstances, have no employment rights. They are however protected under the Law of Contract.
A Contract is in place whether made verbally or in writing. The difficulty is that verbal contracts are always open to denial and/or ambiguity.
Contractual terms can therefore be either implied or express.
Terms of a Contract are express when they are actually agreed by the two parties. They caneither be put in writing or verbally agreed.
Terms of a Contract can be implied if:
find out all about the pda at: www.the-pda.org |
1.They are dictated by statute.
2.They are determined by the previous behaviours of the two parties (e.g. if the locum has worked for an employer before, or on a long term basis, and has been given short notice to cancel a booking and accepted it, this could now be interpreted as an implied term of the contract).
3.There is a custom and practice or ‘norm’ in the Industry. (e.g. If there is an industry-wide acceptance that three days notice either side to cancel a booking is normal).
The difficulty that the PDA faces when protecting Locums from breaches in contract is that avery high proportion do not have a written ‘Contract for Services’, this allows very little spacefor manoeuver when dealing with the implicit terms rather than the explicit terms whichwould be stated in the written contract.
Previous to the inauguration of the PDA there was only one example of a ‘generic’ contractfor services in circulation and its main purpose was specifically to ensure that the termsagreed between a locum and an engager were those that constituted a self-employed ‘contract for services’ and not an employed ‘contract of service’. This distinction is importantas it can mean that the engager is held responsible by the Inland Revenue for paying thelocums Tax and National Insurance and the locums self-employed tax status is refused.
The NPA ‘Locum Contract for Services’ documentPeriodically, the Inland Revenue (IR) will decide to investigate whether a pharmacist whoclaims to be self-employed is truly self-employed or whether he is in fact an employee. Theensuing IR investigation will look carefully at the exact nature of the relationship and willperform certain tests to establish whether the relationship is that of employment or self-employment. To protect pharmacist locums and those that retain their services fromdisadvantageous assessments (i.e. to ensure that the IR did not state that the individualswere actually employees and that the employers need to pay back tax and back employersNI contributions), the National Pharmaceutical Association (NPA) produced what has becomeknown as a ‘ Contract for Services’ document which is now in widespread use in pharmacywhen an engager books the services of a locum. The problem with this document is that ithas been produced by the NPA whose primary aim is to look after the interests of theemployers and not of locums or employees. Consequently, whilst it satisfies the requirementsof the Inland Revenue, it unfortunately places a burden on the shoulders of the locums, butin the view of the PDA, it does not place a commensurate or balanced burden on theshoulders of the engagers. As a result, locums who are engaged under the terms of the NPAContract for Services are exposed to a number of obligations to the engager, but the engageris not placed under what PDA consider to be reasonable obligations to the locum.
12. 13.
Dealing with, and overcoming problems in contracts of employment
find out all about the pda at: www.the-pda.org |
For example the NPA Contract for Services does not require an engager to;
a) Provide a safe working environment for the locum.
b) Provide sufficient properly trained staff to enable the safe provision of pharmaceutical services at the pharmacy.
Neither does the NPA Contract for Services give the locum reasonable protection in theevent that an engager cancels a booking at short notice.
The PDA ‘Locum Contract for Services’ documentThe PDA has produced a ‘Contract for Services’ document which the PDA believesbalances the responsibilities of each party to the other. In the view of the PDA, this makes ita much more equitable document.
For example, the PDA places a requirement on the engager to;
a) Ensure that a safe working environment exists.
b) Ensure that sufficient properly trained staff are available to enable the safe provision of pharmaceutical services at the pharmacy.
c) Ensure that locum bookings cannot be cancelled at short notice without some form of compensation paid to the locum.
The PDA Contract for Services has been approved for use by the Inland Revenue (page 13) and locums are urged to use the PDA Contract for Services in all of their dealingswith engagers.
The PDA Contract for Services can be found on pages 14 to 17 of this booklet and isdesigned to be photocopied and used by locum pharmacists. Ideally, locums should servea signed copy to their engager prior to undertaking work with that engager. In the event thata locum undertakes a lot of work for one particular engager, then one such signed ‘Contractfor Services’ will suffice as long as it is served on the relevant Head Office. Ideally, a freshcontract should be served annually.
Locums working as Limited CompaniesThese days, many locums have established themselves as Limited Companies as thisassists with limiting their personal and taxation liabilities. A ‘Contract for Services’ designedfor locums who work as Limited Companies is also enclosed (pages 18 to 21).
Dear Sir
Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA) - Status Determination
I refer to your letter of 5 November 2004 and our subsequent telephone conversations.
You will recall that generally it is not the practice of this department to comment on draft contractsof this nature, however I am able to advise under Code of Practice 10 that locum pharmacistswho work to the express terms and conditions of the proposed contract will be likely to be selfemployed.
You should note however, that this opinion should be regarded as provisional as no firmconclusion can be reached until each contract operates in practice.
If the contract is not operated in practice, nor there are oral or implied conditions, which have not,been presented, this view may alter in individual cases.
You will appreciate that the line being taken with regard to the Pharmacists’ Defence Associationis very much in line with that followed with the standardised form of agreement devised by the National Pharmaceutical Association (NPA) which is commonly utilised for the engagement of Locum Pharmacists- that is to say where NPA agreement is followed, it is likely that thelocum will be self employed- bearing in mind that a written document by itself cannot determineEmployment Status- the oral and implied terms of the engagement and the extent to which thewritten terms are followed also need to be taken into account.
It would be helpful if you would indicate when the PDA contract is intended to be utilised so that Ican draw my colleague’s attention to this so as to minimise any enquiries.
Area Director: Roger Atkinson
Yours faithfully
John BrownStatus Inspector
Birmingham Solihull AreaComplianceCity Centre House30 Union Street Birmingham B2 4AG
Monday to Friday 8.30 to 17.00
FF aa xx 01215356415
www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk
The Pharmacists’ Defence Association,The Old Fire Station69 Albion Street,BirminghamB1 3EA
Date 24 March 2005Our ref 450/7C/Status/068/SZ758437/WJBYour ref mxj/694742-1DOC/7316.20/plm
14. 15.
pag
e 1
of
2
Bas
is o
f Ag
reem
ent
This
agr
eem
ent
shal
l be
dee
med
to
be t
he e
ntire
agr
eem
ent
betw
een
the
Pro
prie
tor a
nd th
e Lo
cum
.D
urat
ion
If th
e ag
reem
ent i
s a
rolli
ng a
gree
men
t and
can
cella
tion
resu
lts in
exis
ting
book
ings
bei
ng c
ance
lled
then
the
prov
isio
ns o
f cla
use
6w
ill a
pply.
The
Prop
rieto
r may
imm
edia
tely
term
inat
e th
is a
gree
men
t with
out
notic
e if
the
Locu
m is
in b
reac
h of
cla
use
3.3
and
the
Locu
m m
ay
Na
me
of
Ph
arm
acy
……
……
……
……
……
……
…..
....
....
..…
..…
……
……
……
……
……
…of
…
…...
.……
……
……
……
……
……
…...
......
..……
.……
……
……
…..
……
……
……
……
……
..……
……
……
…...
......
......
......
......
..……
….…
……
……
……
……
……
……
...…
……
……
……
….…
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
.……
…..
....
....
...…
……
……
……
……
……
……
(‘T
he
Pro
pri
eto
r’).
Na
me
of
Locu
m
……
……
……
....
....
..…
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
….
of
……
……
……
…..
....
....
.……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
...…
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
.……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
….…
……
……
……
……
……
……
….…
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
….
(‘T
he
Locu
m’)
.
Du
rati
on
:F
ixe
d
Term
fr
om
…
……
..…
…..
……
to
…
…..
..…
.…..
……
…
or
Ro
llin
g T
erm
fro
m …
……
…..
....
....
....
… u
nti
l te
rmin
ate
d b
y
eith
er p
art
y g
ivin
g t
wo
wee
k’s
no
tice
in
wri
tin
g.
Pro
pri
eto
r’s
Pre
mis
es (
“Ph
arm
acy
”):
Fee
:£
……
……
...…
….
per
ho
ur/
per
da
y
CO
NT
RA
CT
FO
R S
ER
VIC
ES
, W
HE
RE
BY
IT
IS
AG
RE
ED
AS
FO
LLO
WS
:
imm
edia
tely
ter
min
ate
this
agr
eem
ent
with
out
notic
e if
the
Pro
prie
tor i
s in
bre
ach
of c
laus
e 4.
1.O
n te
rmin
atio
n of
this
agr
eem
ent a
ll m
onie
s du
e an
d ow
ing
to th
eLo
cum
sha
ll be
com
e du
e an
d pa
yabl
e.S
ervi
ces
and
Loc
um’s
Ob
ligat
ions
Dur
ing
the
subs
iste
nce
of t
his
agre
emen
t th
e Lo
cum
sha
ll pr
ovid
e to
the
Pro
prie
tor s
ervi
ces
as a
pha
rmac
eutic
al c
hem
ist a
tth
e P
harm
acy
(the
“Ser
vice
s”).
The
Pro
prie
tor
shal
l pe
rmit
the
Locu
m t
o su
b-co
ntra
ct t
heS
ervi
ces
to a
noth
er p
harm
acis
t w
ho w
ill a
ct a
s hi
s/he
r de
puty
.Th
is
clau
se
shal
l be
su
bjec
t to
th
e P
ropr
ieto
r’s
right
, fo
r re
ason
able
ca
use,
to
re
fuse
to
ac
cept
th
e se
rvic
es
of
a pa
rticu
lar P
harm
acis
t Dep
uty.
The
Locu
m:
war
rant
s to
th
e P
ropr
ieto
r th
at
he/s
he
is
a re
gist
ered
ph
arm
aceu
tical
ch
emis
t an
d th
at
he/s
he
is
awar
e of
th
eP
ropr
ieto
r’s
stat
utor
y an
d pr
ofes
sion
al
oblig
atio
ns
as
the
Pro
prie
tor o
f a p
harm
acy;
sh
all i
n hi
s/he
r dis
cret
ion,
spe
nd s
uch
perio
ds a
t the
Pha
rmac
y as
will
ens
ure
that
the
sta
tuto
ry a
nd p
rofe
ssio
nal o
blig
atio
ns o
f th
eP
ropr
ieto
r ref
erre
d to
in c
laus
e 3.
3.1
are
com
plie
d w
ith;
shal
l exe
rcis
e al
l pro
fess
iona
l ski
ll an
d di
ligen
ce in
the
prov
isio
n of
the
Ser
vice
s bu
t sha
ll no
t be
subj
ect t
o th
e di
rect
ion
or c
ontro
l of
the
Pro
prie
tor
as t
o th
e m
anne
r in
whi
ch h
e/sh
e pe
rform
s su
chS
ervi
ces;
whe
re h
e/sh
e ha
s pr
ocur
ed t
he s
ervi
ces
of a
dep
uty
to p
erfo
rmth
e S
ervi
ces,
will
use
his
/her
rea
sona
ble
ende
avou
rs t
o en
sure
that
suc
h de
puty
sha
ll ex
erci
se a
ll pr
ofes
sion
al s
kill
and
dilig
ence
in th
e pr
ovis
ion
of th
e S
ervi
ces;
shal
l not
be
requ
ired
by th
e Pr
oprie
tor t
o pe
rform
any
dut
ies
at th
eP
harm
acy
in c
onne
ctio
n w
ith t
he r
unni
ng o
r op
erat
ion
of t
he
CO
NT
RA
CT
FO
R S
ER
VIC
ES
FO
R T
HE
PR
OV
ISIO
N O
F L
OC
UM
SE
RV
ICE
S
1. 1.1
2. 2.1
2.2
2.3
3. 3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3.
1
3.3.
2
3.3.
3
3.3.
4
3.3.
5
Prop
rieto
r’s b
usin
ess
othe
r tha
n th
e pr
ovis
ion
of th
e Se
rvic
es a
s a
phar
mac
eutic
al c
hem
ist
and
mat
ters
dire
ctly
rel
ated
to
the
prov
isio
n of
the
Ser
vice
s by
the
Locu
m; a
ndsh
all
prov
ide
his/
her
own
prot
ectiv
e cl
othi
ng a
nd a
ny i
tem
s of
equi
pmen
t co
nsid
ered
by
him
/her
to
be n
eces
sary
for
the
prov
isio
n of
the
Ser
vice
s, w
hich
are
not
alre
ady
avai
labl
e at
the
Pha
rmac
y.P
rop
rieto
r’s
Ob
ligat
ions
The
Pro
prie
tor
agre
es t
o pr
ovid
e a
safe
wor
king
env
ironm
ent
and
suffi
cien
t pr
oper
ly
trai
ned
staf
f as
ar
e re
ason
ably
ne
cess
ary
for
the
prov
isio
n of
an
ac
cept
able
an
d pr
oper
ph
arm
aceu
tical
ser
vice
and
suc
h as
is/a
re n
eces
sary
in o
rder
toco
mpl
y w
ith
all
stat
utor
y,
com
mon
-law
, le
gal
and
ethi
cal
requ
irem
ents
of t
he R
oyal
Pha
rmac
eutic
al S
ocie
ty o
f Gre
at B
ritai
n.Fe
es a
nd P
aym
ent
In r
etur
n fo
r th
e pe
rfor
man
ce b
y th
e Lo
cum
of
the
agre
edS
ervi
ces,
the
Locu
m s
hall
invo
ice
the
Pro
prie
tor f
or th
e gr
oss
Fee
on t
erm
inat
ion
of t
his
agre
emen
t, or
if
the
dura
tion
of t
heag
reem
ent e
xcee
ds o
ne m
onth
, on
a m
onth
ly b
asis
.Th
e P
ropr
ieto
r sh
all
pay
the
Locu
m (
whe
ther
the
Ser
vice
s ar
epe
rform
ed b
y th
e Lo
cum
or
by a
dep
uty)
the
gro
ss F
ee w
ithou
tan
y se
t-off,
ded
uctio
n, c
ount
ercl
aim
or
any
othe
r w
ithho
ldin
g of
mon
ies.
E
arly
Can
cella
tion
of th
e S
ervi
ces
If th
e Lo
cum
is u
nabl
e to
pro
vide
the
Ser
vice
s, h
e/sh
e m
ust g
ive
the
Prop
rieto
r as
muc
h ad
vanc
e no
tice
as is
reas
onab
ly p
ossi
ble.
If th
e Lo
cum
giv
es l
ess
than
14
days
’ no
tice
of c
ance
llatio
n,he
/she
will
atte
mpt
to
arra
nge
for
a su
bstit
ute
phar
mac
ist
topr
ovid
e th
e S
ervi
ces
at n
o ex
tra c
ost
to t
he P
ropr
ieto
r an
d th
eLo
cum
will
be
liabl
e fo
r an
y ad
ditio
nal
cost
s in
curr
ed b
y th
eP
ropr
ieto
r as
a r
esul
t of s
uch
canc
ella
tion.
The
am
ount
pay
able
by th
e Lo
cum
und
er th
is c
laus
e 6.
1, s
hall
neve
r exc
eed
twic
e th
eap
porti
onm
ent o
f the
Fee
for t
he d
ay in
que
stio
n an
d sh
all n
ever
exce
ed th
ree
days
’ app
ortio
nmen
t of t
he F
ee.
If th
e P
ropr
ieto
r can
cels
a b
ooki
ng b
efor
e th
e co
mm
ence
men
t of
a bo
okin
g an
d if
no r
easo
nabl
y su
itabl
e al
tern
ativ
e w
ork
can
befo
und
by e
ither
the
Pro
prie
tor o
r the
Loc
um fo
r the
Loc
um fo
r the
canc
elle
d da
ys,
the
Pro
prie
tor
will
be
liabl
e to
pay
the
Loc
um a
prop
ortio
nate
am
ount
of t
he F
ee a
s fo
llow
s:le
ss t
han
14 d
ays’
not
ice
and
mor
e th
an t
hree
day
s’ n
otic
e, a
n
3.3.
6
4. 4.1
5. 5.1
5.2
6. 6.1
6.2
6.2.
1
SIG
NE
Do
n b
eha
lf o
f th
e P
rop
riet
or
……
…..
....
....
....
....
....
....
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
.
DA
TE
Dth
is …
....
....
.…
da
y o
f …
…..
....
....
...…
……
… 2
0..
…..
...
SIG
NE
Do
n b
eha
lf o
f th
e Lo
cum
……
…..
....
....
....
....
....
....
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
.
DA
TE
Dth
is …
....
....
.…
da
y o
f …
…..
....
....
..…
……
……
20
..…
....
.
6.2.
2
7. 7.1
8. 8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.41
8.4.
28.
4.3
8.4.
48.
5
amou
nt e
qual
to 5
0% o
f the
Fee
whi
ch w
ould
hav
e no
rmal
ly b
een
due
had
the
canc
ella
tion
not b
een
mad
e; a
ndle
ss th
an th
ree
days
’ not
ice,
100
% o
f the
Fee
, whi
ch w
ould
hav
eno
rmal
ly b
een
due
had
the
canc
ella
tion
not b
een
mad
e.Fo
rce
Maj
eure
If an
eve
nt b
eyon
d th
e Lo
cum
’s r
easo
nabl
e co
ntro
l (in
clud
ing
but
not
limite
d to
a n
atur
al d
isas
ter,
act
of G
od,
civi
l di
sord
er,
strik
es,
trave
l di
srup
tion,
ser
ious
illn
ess
or h
ospi
talis
atio
n of
aLo
cum
or d
eath
of a
clo
se re
lativ
e) o
ccur
s 14
day
s or
less
bef
ore
a bo
okin
g is
due
to
be p
erfo
rmed
, th
e Lo
cum
or
his/
her
repr
esen
tativ
e m
ay c
ance
l any
boo
king
s w
ithou
t hi
m/h
er b
eing
liabl
e to
the
Pro
prie
tor u
nder
cla
use
6 or
oth
erw
ise.
Li
mita
tion
of L
iab
ility
For
the
purp
oses
of
this
cla
use
8 “L
iabi
lity”
mea
ns l
iabi
lity
for
any
and
all
dam
ages
, cl
aim
s, p
roce
edin
gs,
actio
ns,
awar
ds,
expe
nses
, cos
ts a
nd a
ny o
ther
loss
es a
nd/o
r lia
bilit
ies.
The
Locu
m s
hall
have
no
Liab
ility
for d
efec
tive
Serv
ices
whe
re th
ede
fect
has
bee
n ca
used
or c
ontri
bute
d to
dire
ctly
or i
ndire
ctly
by
the
Pro
prie
tor t
o th
e ex
tent
so
cont
ribut
ed.
The
Locu
m s
hall
have
no
Liab
ility
for
any
mat
ters
whi
ch a
reou
tsid
e hi
s/he
r rea
sona
ble
cont
rol.
The
Locu
m s
hall
have
no
Liab
ility
to th
e P
ropr
ieto
r for
any
:co
nseq
uent
ial l
osse
s;
loss
of p
rofit
s an
d/or
dam
age
to g
oodw
ill;
econ
omic
and
/or o
ther
sim
ilar l
osse
s; a
nd/o
rsp
ecia
l dam
ages
and
indi
rect
loss
es.
The
Pro
prie
tor
shal
l be
und
er a
dut
y to
miti
gate
any
los
s,
dam
age,
cos
ts o
r exp
ense
s th
at h
e/sh
e m
ay s
uffe
r.
8.6
8.7
9. 9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
pag
e 2
of
2
CO
NT
RA
CT
FO
R S
ER
VIC
ES
FO
R P
RO
VIS
ION
OF
LO
CU
M S
ER
VIC
ES
web
site
ww
w.t
he-p
da.
org
or
tele
pho
ne 0
121
694
7000
© T
he P
harm
acis
ts’
Def
ence
Ass
oci
atio
n 20
05
The
Locu
m’s
tota
l Lia
bilit
y to
the
Pro
prie
tor
shal
l not
exc
eed
the
Fee.
Not
hing
in t
his
Con
tract
sha
ll ex
clud
e or
lim
it th
e Li
abili
ty o
f th
eLo
cum
for
dea
th o
r pe
rson
al i
njur
y du
e to
his
/her
neg
ligen
ce
or a
ny L
iabi
lity
whi
ch i
s du
e to
the
Loc
um’s
fra
ud o
r an
y ot
her
liabi
lity
whi
ch i
t is
not
per
mitt
ed t
o ex
clud
e or
lim
it as
a
mat
ter o
f law
.G
ener
alN
othi
ng in
this
agr
eem
ent s
hall
rest
rict t
he r
ight
of t
he L
ocum
topr
ovid
e S
ervi
ces
of th
e sa
me
kind
to o
ther
s, o
utsi
de th
e pe
riods
of ti
me
durin
g w
hich
the
Locu
m h
as a
gree
d to
pro
vide
Ser
vice
s at
the
Pha
rmac
y.Th
e Lo
cum
is
enga
ged
to p
erfo
rm t
he S
ervi
ces
as a
sel
f-em
ploy
ed p
erso
n.
The
Locu
m s
hall
be r
espo
nsib
le f
or a
nd w
ill a
ccou
nt t
o th
ere
leva
nt a
utho
rity
for i
ncom
e ta
x lia
bilit
ies
and
natio
nal i
nsur
ance
or s
imila
r co
ntrib
utio
ns i
n re
spec
t of
the
Fee
and
any
oth
erpa
ymen
ts m
ade
to th
e Lo
cum
und
er th
is a
gree
men
t.U
pon
the
deat
h of
the
Locu
m, t
he P
ropr
ieto
r sha
ll re
mai
n lia
ble
toth
e Lo
cum
’s e
stat
e fo
r al
l sum
s du
e in
res
pect
of s
uch
dutie
s or
serv
ices
whi
ch h
ave
alre
ady
been
per
form
ed.
This
agr
eem
ent
is g
over
ned
by a
nd i
nter
pret
ed i
n ac
cord
ance
with
Eng
lish
law
and
the
parti
es a
gree
to s
ubm
it to
the
excl
usiv
eju
risdi
ctio
n of
the
Eng
lish
Cou
rt.
16. 17.
pag
e 1
of
2
Bas
is o
f A
gre
emen
tTh
is a
gree
men
t bet
wee
n th
e Pa
rties
sha
ll be
dee
med
to b
e th
een
tire
agre
emen
t bet
wee
n th
e P
ropr
ieto
r an
d th
e C
PLS
.D
urat
ion
If th
e ag
reem
ent i
s a
rolli
ng a
gree
men
t and
can
cella
tion
resu
ltsin
exi
stin
g b
ooki
ngs
bei
ng c
ance
lled
the
n th
e p
rovi
sion
s of
clau
se 6
will
app
ly.
The
Pro
prie
tor
may
im
med
iate
ly t
erm
inat
e th
is a
gre
emen
t w
ithou
t no
tice
if th
e C
PLS
is
in b
reac
h of
cla
use
3.2
and
the
Na
me
of
Ph
arm
acy
……
……
……
……
……
……
…..
....
....
..…
..…
……
……
……
……
……
…of
…
…...
.……
……
……
……
……
……
…...
......
..……
.……
……
……
…..
……
……
……
……
……
..……
……
……
…...
......
......
......
......
..……
….…
……
……
……
……
……
……
...…
……
……
……
….…
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
.……
…..
....
....
...…
……
……
……
……
……
……
(‘T
he
Pro
pri
eto
r’).
Na
me
of
Co
mp
an
y P
rovi
din
g C
PLS
……
……
……
....
....
..…
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
….
of
……
……
……
…..
....
....
.……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
...…
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
.……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
….…
……
……
……
……
……
……
….…
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
….
(‘T
he
CP
LS’)
.
Du
rati
on
:F
ixe
d
Term
fr
om
…
……
..…
…..
……
to
…
…..
..…
.…..
……
…
or
Ro
llin
g T
erm
fro
m …
……
…..
....
....
....
… u
nti
l te
rmin
ate
d b
y
eith
er p
art
y g
ivin
g t
wo
wee
k’s
no
tice
in
wri
tin
g.
Pro
pri
eto
r’s
Pre
mis
es (
“Ph
arm
acy
”):
Fee
:£
……
……
...…
….
per
ho
ur/
per
da
y
CO
NT
RA
CT
FO
R S
ER
VIC
ES
, W
HE
RE
BY
IT
IS
AG
RE
ED
AS
FO
LLO
WS
:
CP
LS m
ay im
med
iate
ly te
rmin
ate
this
agr
eem
ent w
ithou
t not
ice
if th
e P
ropr
ieto
r is
in b
reac
h of
cla
use
4.1.
On
term
inat
ion
of t
his
agre
emen
t al
l mon
ies
due
and
owin
g to
the
CP
LS s
hall
beco
me
due
and
paya
ble.
Ser
vice
s an
d L
ocu
m’s
Ob
ligat
ions
Dur
ing
the
subs
iste
nce
of t
his
agre
emen
t th
e P
ropr
ieto
r sh
all
rece
ive
from
the
CP
LS a
nd t
he C
PLS
sha
ll p
rovi
de
to t
heP
ropr
ieto
r se
rvic
es o
f a
qua
lifie
d,
regi
ster
ed P
harm
aceu
tical
Che
mis
t at t
he P
harm
acy
(the
“S
ervi
ces”
).Th
e C
PLS
: w
arra
nts
to t
he P
ropr
ieto
r th
at t
hose
who
are
to
prov
ide
the
serv
ices
are
regi
ster
ed P
harm
aceu
tical
Che
mis
t(s)
and
that
it is
awar
e of
the
Pro
prie
tor’s
sta
tuto
ry a
nd p
rofe
ssio
nal o
blig
atio
nsas
the
Pro
prie
tor
of a
pha
rmac
y;
shal
l [in
its
disc
retio
n] e
nsur
e th
at it
s P
harm
aceu
tical
Che
mis
t(s)
spen
d(s)
suc
h pe
riods
at
the
Pha
rmac
y as
will
ens
ure
that
the
stat
utor
y an
d pr
ofes
sion
al o
blig
atio
ns o
f the
Pro
prie
tor
refe
rred
to in
cla
use
3.2.
1 ar
e co
mpl
ied
with
;sh
all
ensu
re t
hat
its P
harm
aceu
tical
Che
mis
t(s)
exe
rcis
e al
lpr
ofes
sion
al s
kill
and
dilig
ence
in th
e re
nder
ing
of th
e S
ervi
ces
but
sha
ll no
t b
e su
bje
ct t
o th
e d
irect
ion
or c
ontr
ol o
f th
eP
ropr
ieto
r as
to th
e m
anne
r in
whi
ch h
e/sh
e sh
all p
erfo
rm s
uch
Ser
vice
s;w
here
CP
LS h
as p
rocu
red
the
serv
ices
of
a de
puty
to
perfo
rmth
e S
ervi
ces,
will
use
its
reas
onab
le e
ndea
vour
s to
ens
ure
that
such
dep
uty
shal
l exe
rcis
e al
l pro
fess
iona
l ski
ll an
d di
ligen
ce in
the
rend
erin
g of
the
Ser
vice
s;sh
all
ensu
re t
hat
its e
mp
loye
e(s)
ren
der
to
the
Pro
prie
tor,
Ser
vice
s as
a P
harm
aceu
tical
Che
mis
t an
d m
atte
rs d
irect
lyre
late
d to
the
prov
isio
n of
suc
h S
ervi
ces;
and
shal
l p
rovi
de
its o
wn
pro
tect
ive
clot
hing
and
sha
ll fu
rthe
r
CO
NT
RA
CT
FO
R T
HE
PR
OV
ISIO
N O
F L
OC
UM
SE
RV
ICE
S
BY
A C
OM
PA
NY
PR
OV
IDIN
G L
OC
UM
SE
RV
ICE
S (
CP
LS)
1. 1.1
2. 2.1
2.2
2.3
3. 3.1
3.2
3.2.
1
3.2.
2
3.2.
3
3.2.
4
3.2.
5
3.2.
6
prov
ide
its e
mpl
oyee
(s) w
ith a
ny it
ems
of e
quip
men
t con
side
red
by th
e C
PLS
to b
e ne
cess
ary
for
the
rend
erin
g of
the
Ser
vice
s,w
hich
are
not
ava
ilabl
e at
the
Pha
rmac
yP
rop
riet
or’
s O
blig
atio
nsTh
e P
ropr
ieto
r ag
rees
to
prov
ide
a sa
fe w
orki
ng e
nviro
nmen
tan
d
suffi
cien
t p
rop
erly
tr
aine
d
staf
f as
ar
e re
ason
ably
ne
cess
ary
for
the
pro
visi
on o
f an
acc
epta
ble
and
pro
per
ph
arm
aceu
tical
ser
vice
and
suc
h as
is/a
re n
eces
sary
in o
rder
toco
mp
ly
with
al
l st
atut
ory,
co
mm
on-la
w,
leg
al
and
et
hica
l
req
uire
men
ts o
f th
e R
oyal
Pha
rmac
eutic
al S
ocie
ty o
f G
reat
Brit
ain.
The
Pro
prie
tor
shal
l p
erm
it th
e C
PLS
to
sub
-con
trac
t th
ese
rvic
es w
hich
it
is c
ontr
acte
d he
rein
to
prov
ide,
to
anot
her
Pha
rmac
ist
who
will
act
as
his
or h
er D
eput
y; t
his
clau
se s
hall
be s
ubje
ct t
o th
e P
ropr
ieto
r’s r
ight
, fo
r re
ason
able
cau
se,
tore
fuse
to a
ccep
t the
ser
vice
s of
a p
artic
ular
Pha
rmac
ist D
eput
y.FF
eeee
ss aa
nndd
PPaa
yymmee
nntt
In r
etur
n fo
r th
e p
erfo
rman
ce b
y th
e C
PLS
of
the
agre
edS
ervi
ces,
the
Pro
prie
tor
shal
l p
ay t
o th
e C
PLS
(w
heth
er t
heS
ervi
ces
are
perfo
rmed
by
the
CP
LS o
r by
a d
eput
y) th
e gr
oss
Fee
with
out
any
set-
off,
dedu
ctio
n, c
ount
ercl
aim
or
any
othe
rw
ithho
ldin
g of
mon
ies.
The
Pro
prie
tor
shal
l pay
the
Fees
due
to th
e C
PLS
on
or b
efor
eth
e la
st w
orki
ng d
ay o
f eac
h m
onth
, or
earli
er if
so
agre
ed.
Ear
ly C
ance
llatio
n o
f th
e S
ervi
ces
If th
e C
PLS
is u
nabl
e to
pro
vide
the
Ser
vice
s, it
mus
t gi
ve a
sm
uch
adva
nce
notic
e to
th
e P
rop
rieto
r as
is
re
ason
ably
pos
sib
le.
If
the
CP
LS g
ives
les
s th
an 1
4 d
ays’
not
ice
ofca
ncel
latio
n, it
will
atte
mpt
to a
rran
ge a
sub
stitu
te p
harm
acis
t to
prov
ide
the
Ser
vice
s at
no
extra
cos
t to
the
Pro
prie
tor
and
the
CP
LS w
ill b
e lia
ble
for
any
add
ition
al c
osts
inc
urre
d b
y th
eP
ropr
ieto
r as
a re
sult
of s
uch
canc
ella
tion.
The
am
ount
pay
able
in r
espe
ct o
f cos
ts p
ayab
le b
y th
e C
PLS
und
er th
is c
laus
e 6.
1,sh
all n
ever
exc
eed
[tw
ice]
the
appo
rtion
men
t of t
he F
ee fo
r th
ed
ay
in
que
stio
n an
d
shal
l ne
ver
exce
ed
[thr
ee]
day
s’ap
porti
onm
ent o
f the
Fee
. If
the
Pro
prie
tor
canc
els
a bo
okin
g pr
ior
to th
e co
mm
ence
men
tda
te f
or t
he p
erfo
rman
ce o
f th
e S
ervi
ces
and
if no
rea
sona
bly
suita
ble
alte
rnat
ive
wor
k ca
n be
foun
d by
eith
er th
e P
ropr
ieto
r or
the
CP
LS fo
r its
em
ploy
ee(s
) for
the
day(
s) in
que
stio
n, th
en th
e
4. 4.1
4.2
5. 5.1
5.2
6. 6.1
6.2
18. 19.
6.2.
1
6.2.
2
7. 7.1
8. 8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
Pro
prie
tor w
ill b
e lia
ble
to p
ay th
e C
PLS
a p
ropo
rtion
ate
amou
ntof
the
Fee
as fo
llow
s:le
ss th
an 1
4 da
ys’ n
otic
e an
d m
ore
than
thre
e da
ys’ n
otic
e, a
nam
ount
equ
al t
o 50
% o
f th
e Fe
e w
hich
wou
ld h
ave
norm
ally
been
due
had
the
canc
ella
tion
not b
een
mad
e.le
ss th
an th
ree
days
’ not
ice,
100
% o
f the
Fee
whi
ch w
ould
hav
eno
rmal
ly b
een
due
had
the
canc
ella
tion
not b
een
mad
e.Fo
rce
Maj
eure
In th
e ev
ent o
f an
even
t bey
ond
the
CP
LS’s
rea
sona
ble
cont
rol
(incl
udin
g bu
t no
t lim
ited
to a
nat
ural
dis
aste
r, ac
t of
God
, civ
ild
isor
der
, st
rikes
, tr
avel
d
isru
ptio
n,
serio
us
illne
ss
orho
spita
lisat
ion
of t
he C
PLS
’s e
mpl
oyee
(s)
or d
eath
of
a cl
ose
rela
tive
of t
he e
mpl
oyee
(s))
with
in a
per
iod
of 1
4 da
ys o
r le
ssb
efor
e a
boo
king
is
due
to
be
per
form
ed,
the
CP
LS o
r its
repr
esen
tativ
e m
ay c
ance
l any
boo
king
s w
ithou
t bei
ng li
able
toth
e P
ropr
ieto
r un
der
clau
se 6
or
othe
rwis
e.
Lim
itatio
n o
f Li
abili
tyFo
r th
e pu
rpos
es o
f th
is c
laus
e 8
“Lia
bilit
y” m
eans
liab
ility
for
any
and
all
dam
ages
, cl
aim
s, p
roce
edin
gs,
actio
ns,
awar
ds,
expe
nses
, cos
ts a
nd a
ny o
ther
loss
es a
nd/o
r lia
bilit
ies.
The
CP
LS a
nd/o
r its
em
plo
yee(
s) s
hall
have
no
Liab
ility
for
def
ectiv
e S
ervi
ces
whe
re t
he d
efec
t ha
s b
een
caus
ed o
rco
ntrib
uted
to d
irect
ly o
r ind
irect
ly b
y th
e P
ropr
ieto
r to
the
exte
ntso
con
tribu
ted.
The
CP
LS a
nd/o
r its
em
ploy
ee(s
) sh
all h
ave
no L
iabi
lity
for
any
mat
ters
whi
ch a
re o
utsi
de th
eir
reas
onab
le c
ontro
l.Th
e C
PLS
and
/or
its e
mpl
oyee
(s)
shal
l hav
e no
Lia
bilit
y to
the
Pro
prie
tor
for
any:
cons
eque
ntia
l los
ses;
lo
ss o
f pro
fits
and/
or d
amag
e to
goo
dwill
; ec
onom
ic a
nd/o
r ot
her
sim
ilar
loss
es; a
nd/o
rsp
ecia
l dam
ages
and
indi
rect
loss
es.
The
Pro
prie
tor
shal
l b
e un
der
a d
uty
to m
itig
ate
any
loss
,da
mag
e, c
osts
or
expe
nses
that
he/
she
may
suf
fer.
Not
hing
in th
is C
ontra
ct s
hall
excl
ude
or li
mit
the
Liab
ility
of t
heC
PLS
for
dea
th o
r pe
rson
al i
njur
y du
e to
neg
ligen
ce,
or a
nyLi
abili
ty w
hich
is d
ue t
o th
e C
PLS
’s f
raud
, or
any
oth
er li
abili
tyw
hich
it is
not
per
mitt
ed to
exc
lude
or
limit
as a
mat
ter
of la
w.
Gen
eral
Not
hing
in th
is a
gree
men
t sha
ll re
stric
t the
rig
ht o
f the
CP
LS to
prov
ide
Ser
vice
s of
the
sam
e ki
nd to
oth
ers,
out
side
the
perio
dsof
tim
e du
ring
whi
ch th
e C
PLS
has
agr
eed
that
its
empl
oyee
(s)
will
pro
vide
Ser
vice
s at
the
Pha
rmac
y.Th
e C
PLS
is
a bo
dy c
orpo
rate
and
con
trac
ts t
o pe
rform
the
Ser
vice
s in
this
cap
acity
. Th
e C
PLS
sha
ll b
e re
spon
sib
le f
or a
nd w
ill a
ccou
nt t
o th
ere
leva
nt
auth
oriti
es
for
inco
me
tax
liab
ilitie
s an
d
natio
nal
insu
ranc
e or
sim
ilar
cont
ribut
ions
in r
espe
ct o
f its
em
ploy
ees.
8.4.
18.
4.2
8.4.
38.
4.4
8.5
8.6
9. 9.1
9.2
9.3 SIG
NE
Do
n b
eha
lf o
f th
e P
rop
riet
or
……
…..
....
....
....
....
....
....
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
.
DA
TE
Dth
is …
....
....
.…
da
y o
f …
…..
....
....
..…
……
……
20
..…
....
.
SIG
NE
Do
n b
eha
lf o
f th
e C
PLS
……
…..
....
....
....
....
....
....
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
.
DA
TE
Dth
is …
....
....
.…
da
y o
f …
…..
....
....
..…
……
……
20
..…
....
.
pag
e 2
of
2
web
site
ww
w.t
he-p
da.
org
or
tele
pho
ne 0
121
694
7000
© T
he P
harm
acis
ts’
Def
ence
Ass
oci
atio
n 20
05
CO
NT
RA
CT
FO
R T
HE
PR
OV
ISIO
N O
F L
OC
UM
SE
RV
ICE
S
BY
A C
OM
PA
NY
PR
OV
IDIN
G L
OC
UM
SE
RV
ICE
S (
CP
LS
)
Upo
n th
e de
ath
of (
the)
CP
LS e
mpl
oyee
(s)
who
was
/wer
e to
pro
vid
e th
e S
ervi
ces,
the
CP
LS s
hall
fort
hwith
cea
se t
o b
ere
spon
sibl
e fo
r th
e d
isch
arge
of
any
/ al
l d
utie
s or
ser
vice
sag
reed
her
ein,
but
the
Pro
prie
tor s
hall
rem
ain
liabl
e to
the
CP
LSfo
r al
l su
ms
due
in r
espe
ct o
f su
ch d
utie
s or
ser
vice
s w
hich
have
alre
ady
been
per
form
ed.
This
agr
eem
ent
is g
over
ned
by a
nd in
terp
rete
d in
acc
orda
nce
with
Eng
lish
law
and
the
parti
es a
gree
to s
ubm
it to
the
excl
usiv
eju
risdi
ctio
n of
the
Eng
lish
Cou
rts.
9.4
9.5
20. 21.
22. 23.
Dealing with, and overcoming problems in contracts of employment
find out all about the pda at: www.the-pda.org |
8. “The employee shall keep confidential all such information as shall come into his / herknowledge whilst employed by the company and shall not divulge this to any unauthorisedperson, firm or body without the express permission of the employer. On the cessation of thisemployment the restrictions imposed by this paragraph shall endure indefinitely and theemployee shall not seek to use such information to solicit or otherwise obtain for another, thebusiness of the employers customers.”
A clause such as this is in most contracts and it is reasonable for it to be there. However, if theterms are unusually restrictive after the employment has ceased, employees may wish to objectin advance of signing a contract. Once again, as in clause 6, enforcement is the problem for theex-employer seeking to rely on the clause.
9. “The employee will be responsible for ensuring that the company and all employeesworking within his/her control comply with all professional, statutory and other legalrequirements.”
Pharmacists should be concerned and suspicious of these types of clauses; they are often anattempt by the Superintendent Pharmacist and/or the employing company to avoid or shiftsome of the liability for various matters, which are more properly their responsibility. Seniormanagement pharmacists who genuinely have the ability to control the overall environment ofthe pharmacy with little or no restriction from the employer (e.g. staffing levels, training pro-grammes, workload, etc.) may think that this clause is reasonable. Indeed they may have theknowledge and ability to deal with the responsibilities which this type of clause places uponthem. However, as has been seen by the PDA, there is often no real prospect that a pharmacistwill ever have the requisite level of control over the pharmacy environment because that factoris essentially in the hands of others. In such cases this type of clause has no place in theiremployment contract.
Suggested approach;Such clauses should be avoided completely. However, if the pharmacist is given a genuineauthority to act and control the working environment, then the pharmacist should seek a writtenstatement of exactly which legal and professional regulations they are required to be responsi-ble for, rather than just agree to an ‘ unwritten, open-ended’ list. It is crucial that a pharmacist isfully aware of the exact extent of the legal and professional requirements being placed uponthem and for which they are accepting responsibility.
10. “The employee shall provide an emergency dispensing service out-of-hours for NHSprescriptions marked ‘urgent’ and shall also attend at all alarm call-outs.”
Terms such as the one above can, unless subject to defined restrictions, effectively be a prohibition on a pharmacists social life. Many pharmacists agree to these clauses, withoutrealising that they may be unable to go away at a weekend or even to go out any distance in theevening. Moreover, many pharmacists agree to such clauses without thinking through the prac-tical implications of being required to attend their pharmacy at night because there has been abreak-in and where there is no guarantee that the police will be present.
Suggested approach;If agreeing to such terms, then at the very least pharmacists are urged to make sure that they;
a) Negotiate extra pay to compensate for the restrictions on their social life.
b) Seek amendments which ensure that a deputy pharmacist for the urgent prescriptions can be found.
c) Seek to include permission to appoint an alternative key-holding member of staff for alarm call-outs.
11. “Training of staff; the employee shall ensure that all staff are trained to the requiredstandard for their particular job and shall be responsible for any failures in such training.”
This clause is similar to clause 8 and similar comments apply. The effect of these types ofclauses is that if a catastrophic failure occurs then it could result in the pharmacist taking thebrunt of the responsibility and not the company or its superintendent. This can only be justifiableif the pharmacist has been given relatively unhindered scope for action and the physical/finan-cial support necessary to ensure that the pharmacist can truly deliver. Experienced seniormanagers will probably feel quite comfortable however, they are urged to seek specific defini-tions on limits. Less experienced pharmacists are urged to secure a detailed job-descriptionwhich specifies exactly the training to be given to each staff member and which provides formanagement support from the employer.
12. “The employee shall be responsible for the endorsement and submission of all pre-scriptions to the pricing authority on time and shall ensure that all prescriptions areendorsed according to the employer’s instructions; the employee shall be responsible forall claims submitted and any errors and shall indemnify the employer in respect thereof.”
24. 25.
Dealing with, and overcoming problems in contracts of employment
find out all about the pda at: www.the-pda.org |
Pharmacists should be very wary indeed of ever signing a contract which contains this clause.The effect of this clause is that it may mean that the employer can claim any losses from theemployee. More importantly, if the employers instructions on script endorsement are dubious,but are nevertheless followed, then this could lead to the employed pharmacist having to takeprofessional and criminal liability for ‘endorsing fraud’.
Suggested approach;Terms which make the pharmacist responsible for all claims and any errors and which requirethe pharmacist to indemnify the employer in respect thereof should never be agreed to.
13. Terms aimed at avoiding the liabilities of employment altogether
Some employers will offer ‘employment’, but then deliberately use wording and terminology intheir contracts which set out to avoid the responsibilities that an employer is required to have.Consequently, when an employment issue arises, they can argue that the pharmacist wasnever an employee in the first place. The tell – tale sign to look out for is when the documentthat is deemed to be an employment contract is not given a heading which includes the word‘employment’. Instead different headings are used, e.g. “Manager’s Contract”, “Pharmacist’sContract”, “Terms of the Pharmacist’s Service”.
Numerous pharmacists have signed such agreements, not suspecting them to be in any wayproblematic. The simple rule is that if the pharmacist is to be employed, then the headingshould state “employment contract” and the words “employer” and “employee” should beused in the contract.
14. “The employee will be required to be responsible for the payment of his/her ownNational Insurance and Income Tax contributions, during the time of his/her employment.”
One recent situation dealt with by the PDA saw a contract which was headed “contract for self-employed employment” and then went-on to include the above clause. The ensuing dispute has nowended up in court, but the fact that the ‘employee’ pharmacist agreed to it has made the case muchmore difficult to prosecute on behalf of the employee pharmacist.
15. “The Pharmacist / Manager will at all times maintain his/her own contract of insur-ance, covering professional and other liabilities arising out of all of his / her actions underthis contract. The Pharmacist / Manager will indemnify the Company against all and anylosses, howsoever arising, whilst the business is under his/her control, including failure tohave such insurance in force.”
Employers bear what the law calls ‘vicarious liability’ for all the actions of their employees. Thismeans that if (for example) someone is harmed by the actions, errors or omissions of anemployee pharmacist, then it is always the employer that takes primary responsibility. What mayhappen next, and this is already happening in pharmacy, is that the employer may seek redressfrom the employee through disciplinary procedures, or the employers insurer may seek to pur-sue the employee for a return of the monies it used to settle a claim for compensation from apatient. Contract terms such as this one (written in this way) will have the effect of allowing theemployer to attempt to side-step claims made against his pharmacy by simply telling thepatient (or other third party) that the responsibility for the error is that of the pharmacist and it isthe pharmacist that should therefore be pursued – not the employer. This is especially thecase if the contract does not include the word employee.
The effect of a clause that requires the pharmacist to indemnify the employer for all / any lossesoccurring whilst the pharmacist is in control could be catastrophic for the pharmacist. It couldmean that an injury to a patient that had nothing whatsoever to do with the pharmacist (e.gdefective flooring leading to a fall) could still make the pharmacist personally liable. Such aclause has also been seen in some contracts issued to Primary Care Pharmacists where theyare (probably inadvertently) being asked to take responsibility for any errors that occur in the GPsurgery where they provide their services – to include those made by surgery staff and GP’s.
Suggested approach;If the employer seeks to include a requirement as to the employee carrying their own insurance,then the pharmacist should seek to ensure that the word “employee” appears in the relevantclause (unless of course the relationship is truly that of self-employment).
The requirement to indemnify the employer (the company, the surgery or the PCT) against alllosses, etc. should never be agreed to under any circumstances.
16. ‘TUPE’. Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
If employed by an existing employer on agreed contract terms, then those terms (unless thecontract provides otherwise) cannot be changed or amended without the agreement of theemployee. However, a very common situation in pharmacy is the company ‘takeover’ where asmall pharmacy or small chain is acquired by a larger multiple. Typically, a few weeks after thetakeover, the training coordinator / area manager / ‘HR person’ arrives to announce that theyhave issued new contracts to bring everyone into line and, so as to keep all the paperworkstraight, they will want it signed so that they can take it away with them when they leave later onthat afternoon. The discussion generally leads the pharmacist to believe that this is merely aroutine formality paperwork exercise and nothing to be concerned about.
26. 27.
Dealing with, and overcoming problems in contracts of employment
find out all about the pda at: www.the-pda.org |
However, by virtue of what is known as ‘TUPE’ [the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection ofEmployment) Regulations 1981], employees’ original contract terms and rights are maintained,despite business transfers to new owners. In short, employees of a business which is takenover by another, transfer to the new employer on the same terms and conditions as theyenjoyed with the old employer. In addition, the employment is deemed to have commenced atthe time that the employment with the old employer originally started. This means that thelength of service for employees is protected and preserved as are the original terms and condi-tions. However, the new owners may wish to include different, possibly less advantageousterms and conditions, such as a right to require different hours to be worked, a right to transferthe employee to another branch, dictate alternative holiday dates, change working practicesand existing agreements, restrict the employee’s right to work for other employers outside ofemployment times, etc., etc. A simple way of achieving these changes is for the employer toput the new or varied terms and conditions in the ‘new contracts’, add some small ‘benefit’ forthe employee (to provide for what lawyer’s call ‘fresh consideration’ and thus to make the con-tract legally binding) then to present them to the existing staff. Often this is done in such a wayas to ensure that the employee does not suspect that anything significant has occurred, usuallyduring the first visit to the newly acquired pharmacy. Very often the staff are nervous of the newemployer and the last thing they want to do is to ‘upset’ relations at the first encounter. Theeffect of being co-operative and complying with this requirement can prove to be (and often is)disastrous for the employee, when the new area manager turns up later and starts to makerequests/ demands that would have been impossible under the old contract.
The lesson to employees in take-over situations is that if they sign their new contract withoutcareful consideration then they may get into disputes with their new employer about whetherthey are bound by the new terms. This can be unpleasant and costly.
Another issue for employees to bear in mind is that employers are under an obligation to notifyemployees about a proposed transfer or sale of the business before the transfer takes place.There is also an obligation on employers to consult with employees about any measures thenew owner is proposing to take in relation to their employment. If the employer doesn’t notifyemployees about a transfer/sale or doesn’t consult with them, employees could be entitled todamages in an Employment Tribunal of up to 90 days pay as compensation for the employersfailure to comply with his obligations.
Suggested approach;Never sign something as important as a contract of employment in a hurry because somebodywants you to sign it so that they can take it with them when they leave.
Pharmacist employees are urged to take time to read any new contract, consult the old one andestablish the differences clause by clause. Using this booklet will go a long way in helping phar-macists establish whether there are any problems. If issues do arise, then pharmacists areurged to take legal advice or contact the PDA and simply inform the new employer that whilstthey have read the proposed contract terms, they would rather not sign them, because theyprefer to rely on those which transferred automatically from their previous employer, under‘TUPE’. It is natural for pharmacists to want to avoid confrontation, but PDA has dealt withcases where tackling the problem straight away, would have avoided many months of tortuouscourt and tribunal arguments which ultimately ended up in the complete breakdown of therelationship between the employer and employee.
17. Working times, Days off and Holidays
"The employee will be required to work a total of forty hours per week, notincluding rest breaks. The business hours of the Pharmacy are 09:00 - 18:00Monday to Saturday and the employee shall be entitled to one whole day perweek on which day he (she) will not work. On that day, he (she) will be respon-sible for the engagement of a locum pharmacist to deputise for him (her). In theevent that the employee is not able to arrange for a locum pharmacist to attendon any particular day, then he (she) shall be responsible for attending at thePharmacy and providing his (her) services as a pharmacist to ensure the conti-nuity of provision of pharmaceutical services."
AND/OR
"The employee shall be entitled to five weeks annual leave in any one year.The employee shall be responsible for obtaining a locum pharmacist todeputise for him (her) during all periods of annual leave and the employer willpay the costs (at no more than 'standard' rates of pay). In the event of afailure of any such deputy to attend at the pharmacy, the employee will bepersonally responsible for ensuring that the continuity of provision ofpharmaceutical services is maintained."
The effects of these clauses can have a dramatic effect on the employee pharma-cist. Effectively they make the employee responsible for arranging pharmacist coverif they want a day off or a holiday. In the event that they cannot find a pharmacist,they would not be able to take time off. This can become a big issue particularly inareas of the country where locums are difficult to locate and also during holidaytimes when locums are scarce. The problem is further exacerbated if there are con-
28. 29.
Dealing with, and overcoming problems in contracts of employment
find out all about the pda at: www.the-pda.org |
straints on the hourly rates that an employee is authorised to agree with a locumand also if the employer refuses to allow the employee to use the services of alocum agency to assist with finding cover. Additionally, some employers have acompany policy on locum hourly rates and travelling expenses which places thembelow national norms and this places the employee in a particularly difficult situa-tion. In the experience of PDA, some pharmacists who find themselves in thissituation end up paying agency fees, travelling expenses and top ups on hourlyrates themselves, just so that they can secure their holiday cover.
In other situations, pharmacists have been disciplined by their employers, whenthey have refused to return to work in the event that the locum has failed to arrive.
It is the view of the PDA, that it is entirely unreasonable for an employer to attachsuch onerous conditions on an employee. In the worst instances, the effect of theseclauses mean that the employer is breaching the Working Time Regulations 1998 byfailing to allow employees the opportunity to take their statutory entitlement to paidholidays. Additionally there is also the possibility that the pharmacist will be breach-ing the Pharmacy Code of Ethics by working in a way that causes fatigue andtherefore constituting a risk to the public.
There are further problems for employees with these clauses; in the event that apharmacy ends up with no pharmacist cover due to the failure of a deputy, then thelocal Primary Care Organisation (PCT or Health Board) may decide to penalise thecontractor. This could result in a written warning or even a financial penalty, more-over, the pharmacy could also be reported to the RPSGB, which could then result inan RPSGB investigation. In such circumstances, it is likely that the employee wouldbe drawn directly into such investigations. Ultimately, there is also the possibility ofthe employee being called to employment disciplinary meetings by the employer.
Suggested approach;Ideally these types of clauses should be avoided altogether by employees, as theyreally can have a serious impact on them. This is particularly the case if theemployee works in an area of the country where locums are scarce. It is much moreappropriate for the employer to take the responsibility for pharmacy cover in hispharmacy business. In the event that an employee cannot succeed in deleting sec-tions that require the employee to take responsibility for finding the locum, thenways to reduce the full extent of the l iabil ity could be found. For example, theemployee may insert a sentence which ensures that if a week before the proposedday (week) off, the employee has stil l not managed to secure the services of alocum, then it becomes the responsibility of the employer to make further arrange-ments. Alternatively, the employee may delete the sentence which restricts theemployee to the employer`s preferred hourly rate of pay and the employer`s pre-ferred travelling expense arrangement.
18. Retention of Services after Registration as a Pharmacist (found in contractsgiven to Pre-reg’s)
"This employment is subject to the express condition that upon successfullycompleting the pre-registration training year and registering as a Pharma-ceutical Chemist, the employee wil l be required to continue to acceptemployment by the Company in that capacity, if offered to him (her) by theCompany for a period of at least one year after qualifying. Under the terms ofthis clause, the Company may require the employee to accept employment inany one or a number of its branches, either as a relief manager or managerand at any location within reasonable travelling distance of the employee'spresent home. Furthermore, in the event that the company is unable to offeremployment in such capacity within a reasonable travelling distance of theemployee's home, then the company will (at its discretion) either pay the rea-sonable travelling and accommodation expenses of working away from home,or require the employee to re-locate to another area within the United King-dom, providing that i t shal l meet the reasonable relocation expensesinvolved."
"In the event that the employee shall refuse any employment and / or travel -ling and/ or relocation offered under this clause, or shall seek to take-up ortake-up any offer of employment elsewhere, then the employee shall bedeemed in breach of this contract and the Company shall be enti t led torecover from the employee the full costs of the pre-registration training yearor the sum of £10,000.00 (whichever is the higher figure) from the employeeand the employee hereby expressly authorises the Company to make deduc-tion of such sum from remuneration due to him (her)."
This clause significantly restricts the options for a Pre-reg at the end of their Pre-reg year and gives the employer complete flexibility and control. It means that thenewly qualified can be required by the employer to work anywhere in the UK uponqualifying, even though they may not wish to relocate or they may not wish towork in the particular pharmacy being offered by the employer. The clause usesphrases like ‘reasonable’, which are ambiguous and are a recipe for conflict anddisagreement as what is deemed reasonable by the employer, may not be deemedreasonable by the employee. Additionally, there is no future salary guarantee andthis means that the employer would be able to offer the newly qualified pharmacista salary that is lower than the usual newly qualifying rate.
30. 31.
Dealing with, and overcoming problems in contracts of employment
find out all about the pda at: www.the-pda.org |
Worst of all, in the event that a newly qualified decides not to accept a particularposition, or decides to leave within 12 months of qualifying, then the employerwould be able to recover costs of training. In such instances, it is not difficult toimagine that the employee would consider that it would simply be prohibitivelyexpensive for them to contemplate leaving.
Suggested approach;Ideally, such clauses should be avoided altogether and any pharmacy graduatecontemplating working for an employer who has such clauses contained in theirproposed contract of employment should consider striking out such a clause fromthe proposed contract prior to signing or lessening the burden of such a clause byamending it accordingly. For example, the prospective employee may consideramending the section that entitles the employer to require the employee to workaway from their immediate area after qualifying. This entitlement could be limitedto within a radius of say 10 miles. Alternatively, the prospective employee mayamend the section that describes a twelve month post qualifying commitment,and reduce it to say three months only. Should the employer resist such entirelyreasonable changes, then the prospective employee should think seriously aboutconsidering looking at other employment options.
19. Taking a break but being required to stay on the premises.
"The Pharmacist will be entitled to and shall be obliged to take an unpaid rest break ofone hour between the hours of 12:00 and 14:00 during each 9-hour working day. Duringthis time the pharmacist will be required to remain on the company's premises and incharge of the pharmacy, but shall not be required to work."
It is important to recognise that a 'break' is a total mental and physical break withno 'ties'. The employee must be free from constraints during the hour in question,including freedom to leave the premises, meet with friends, go shopping etc. If theemployer tries to place the pharmacist in a position where their services, eithermental or physical, may be called upon, then the pharmacist is NOT having abreak and is therefore entitled to be paid. Under such circumstances, it does not
qualify as a break, within the meaning of the Working Time Directive / Regulationsand not a break for the purposes of satisfying any professional requirement thatthe RPSGB may have (now or in the future) for a pharmacist to have a break. Thiscould lead to legal or professional consequences for both the pharmacist and theemployer in question.
The employer requires the pharmacist to remain on the premises so that he can legally operate the business. But for this to occur, the pharmacist needs to be not just on the premises, but in control of the Pharmacy and in a position to intervene; in such circumstances, he/she is not having a break. In a 1971 Statutory Committee test case, the Chairman (then Sir Gordon Wilmer) said that"one foot in the door" was insufficient to be in control of a Pharmacy.
Road haulage operators have long had to live with 'tachographs' and regulationswhich require their drivers to have a break. Breaks for pharmacists are at least asessential as breaks for lorry drivers.
Suggested approach;Over-tiredness constitutes a danger to the public and a danger to the Pharmacist'shealth, it is for this reason that the PDA would urge pharmacists to avoid suchclauses altogether.
It is recommended that pharmacists should resist attempts by employers to over-work them and should insist on their statutory right to spend their rest breaks"away from the workstation" and this means the whole of the pharmacy. Should apharmacist be keen to work through their lunch, then they should arrange to bepaid an appropriate salary for this added responsibility. However, it is worthy ofnote, that if in the case of a dispensing error it transpires that the error may haveoccurred due to long working hours leading to the fatigue of the pharmacist, thenany RPSGB investigation may result in additional disciplinary consequences forboth the employer and the pharmacist.
© The Pharmacists’ Defence Association 2005