Thanks to the Clayton Utz spy who made the following comments:
All graduates were told they would receive a salary increase of at least $5k p/a at the end of each of our 3 rotations (every 6 months). A detail conveniently not included in our employment contracts, but generally accepted and relied on by the graduates. For some reason our first rotation was extended from 6 months to 7 months and finally in March 2009, the Friday before we were due to start our second rotation and when we were eagerly expecting or anticipating our pay-rise, we were taken aside by someone from HR and told that the firm had decided to ‘hold’ grad salaries at their current rate because of market conditions – and that this was basically to avoid redundancies. This was actually prior to CU announcing the firm-wide salary-freeze.
If true, one wonders whether the grads are considering an action in estoppel against the Clayton Utz partners!
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
…or an action under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act. Misleading or deceptive representation which was made and relied on to the detriment of the grads.
Youch.
what sort of lawyer relies on a promise not included in the contract?
Errrr, they’re not lawyers, they’re grads.