Employment Contract Dispute

Arizona

I have a contract of employment which was negootiated between myself and a previous HR director. One of the clauses is now in dispute. The current HR director says the wording of the clause is ambiguous. However both the ex HR director and myself had no misunderstaning as to what the clause meant. Indeed the Ex HR director has written to clarify his original understanding. Nevertheless the company are trying to make me sign a declaration which in effect confirms there new understanding of the clause.

My feeling is if the original signiataries to a contract are clear on it's meaning, is it O.K. for a third party to interpret it differently?

Who wrote the agreement??? If it was provided by the employer, then any ambiguity or contradiction will be found to the detriment of the writer.

Simply, if the employer is confused and can't interpret the specifics of the clause... you win.

I would have the new HR person WRITE his interpretation and see if you can accept it. Realizing all the while that if you are currently working without a contract, you are an 'at will' employee.

In fact the agreement was negotiated by both sides, although most of the clauses were from their original contract, we simply amended them.

As I say, if both parties who are signiataries to the contract know what a clause means, I don't see how any third party can argue otherwise. Even if they think it is ambiguos, the fact that the original parties are clear must mean that that interpretation is correct.

You keep making reference to a 'third party' when there isn't one. This is on the assumption that the TWO parties are your employer and you. The 'new' HR person IS your employer.

If your EMPLOYER now has a different interpretation of the agreement, you need to resolve it with him/her. And if you are not able to resolve it, then the courts may be your next step.