Newly qualified pharmacists are signing exclusive employment contracts with Lloydspharmacy for as little as eight hours a week of work due to the tough jobs market, C+D has learned.  

Employees were agreeing to a clause that forbade them from working anywhere other than Lloydspharmacy unless they sought permission, even if they worked just one day a week at the multiple, an anonymous source told C+D.  

Pharmacist repesentatives branded the practice "ridiculously restrictive", but a lawyer said the condition was commonly encountered in employment contracts for both full-time and part-time work with good reason. Lloydspharmacy stressed that it offered a "range of flexible contracts".

"[The contract clause] is, in our opinion, disproportionate for those who are vulnerable to unemployment" John Murphy, general secretary, PDA	More like this Should part-time contracts be exclusive? C+D Senate calls for mentoring network for       'abandoned' graduates England faces surplus of 19,000 pharmacists       by 2040
	C+D's anonymous source said he did not know of any pharmacists who had asked Lloydspharmacy's permission to work elsewhere, so was unaware of how often it was granted.

But he claimed newly qualified pharmacists were most vulnerable to signing restrictive contracts due to the lack of available full-time work. "In the past, it's not really been an issue because you were pretty much guaranteed 45-hour contracts," he said.  

Catherine Courtney, business development manager at agency Team Locum, said few employees would ask permission to work elsewhere. "I think you don't want to jeopardise your job," she told C+D.  

"We usually don't have people on our books who work for Lloydspharmacy because they can't work anywhere else," Ms Courtney added.  

The PDA Union said it was disappointed Lloydspharmacy was placing restrictions on employees who worked so few hours a week. "[The contract clause] is, in our opinion, disproportionate for those who are vulnerable to unemployment and would not choose to work these hours other than by dint that nothing else is available," argued the union's general secretary John Murphy.  

Mr Murphy said the PDA Union was seeking advice on whether the clause could constitute indirect discrimination against part-time employees and advised members not to accept the condition.  

Lindsey Gilpin, founder of Locum Voice, branded the practice "ridiculously restrictive". "It's amazing anyone signs, frankly, because how are you going to get enough to live on?" she asked.  

But Sarah Booth, solicitor at Shoosmiths LLP, said similar working restrictions were "commonly encountered" in employment contracts for full-time and part-time workers in other sectors. "There are good legal and practical reasons for this – for example, to ensure the individual is not exceeding any working time limits or risking the disclosure of confidential information by working for a competitor," she told C+D.  

However, employers should not unreasonably withhold consent from working elsewhere, Ms Booth stressed, particularly in cases where employees legitimately needed to supplement their income.  

"With the current media focus on the perceived problems relating to zero-hours contracts, employers should always seek to exercise their contractual powers equitably," she said.  

Lloydspharmacy did not reveal how often permission was granted for employees to work elsewhere, but stressed that it discussed any changes to contracts with individuals "as opportunities or changes in their personal circumstances arise".  

"We are committed to attracting and retaining the best talent in the market and value our pharmacist network, encouraging personal development and progression," said the multiple's HR director Karan Paige.