Termination reasons and failure to communicate

[stillalive]

Hi all,

I've been contracting on a rolling basis with a very large very well known global company (let's call them "HAL") for the last 3 years. This is in IT services for the public sector. There haven't been any issues on the contract, and I have come inside IR35 at their request (more of a decree, really).

Out of the blue, my Agency called me to say that my contract had been terminated and I had been served with 5d notice. It had been timed deliberately for me being on holiday. The termination and the manner in which it was carried out is highly unusual in our domain, where only someone seriously in breach would be treated like this. It would be typical to move someone to another or give them as much time is necessary to get into the new role (eg. 4-6 weeks).

At no point did the global services company raise delivery issues with me, and thus, there was never any opportunity to discuss or even course correct their perceived issues. At no point did anyone call me, meet with me, nor communicate with me that there were background issues. There is no record of any feedback, there are no emails, and there were no meetings. It's a stitch up, and the people around me say it's a stitch up. The global IT company went from from "see you when you get back" on the Friday, to terminating on the Monday.

The reasons given to the Agency for termination for termination were bogus. (or at least: I accept they're legitimate to the degree that we can all make something up, and if we don't communicate, well it happened to its the truth right?)

It's been suggested to me that the real motivation behind terminating me was because they want a staff member to take over the leadership role I was in (okay fine so why harm me like this?).

My skills are in demand and I found a very similar role within a day or so, but because of bureaucratic issues related to paperwork, I cannot start it for 6 weeks [since the termination].

The supply chain I am in is: I am an employee of an umbrella company, who provide me as an individual to fill an inside IR35 role offered by the Agency, supplying me to a large global IT company's services division, who in turn provide a service to a public sector end client.

With this gap opening up before I can start the new role for the same public sector client, am I in any position where I might hold the global company to account for loss of earnings, the bogus termination reasons, or the unreasonable/vexatious behaviours? What I've been through would never have passed muster for enployees of course, it would look a lot like unlawful dismissal.

[NotAllThere]

What does your contract say about notice? 5 days? And anything in there about paying you for time not worked? I doubt it.

You're a contractor, not a permie. Move on-

[northernladuk]

Hi all,

I've been contracting on a rolling basis with a very large very well known global company (let's call them "HAL") for the last 3 years. This is in IT services for the public sector. There haven't been any issues on the contract, and I have come inside IR35 at their request (more of a decree, really).

You shouldn't have done that. It makes it nigh on impossible to argue your role was ever outside. It's a decree before of the changes in legislation about who can make the determination. As soon as I saw the about a 'decree' I could guess where the rest of the thread is going to go. It's not a decree, it's a change in legislation that's hit many many people.

Out of the blue, my Agency called me to say that my contract had been terminated and I had been served with 5d notice. It had been timed deliberately for me being on holiday. The termination and the manner in which it was carried out is highly unusual in our domain, where only someone seriously in breach would be treated like this. It would be typical to move someone to another or give them as much time is necessary to get into the new role (eg. 4-6 weeks).

I very much doubt it's been deliberatly timed. This, to me, is the 'it's not fair' theme that's going to go on through this thread I am sure. Also thinking you've been treated badly. No, they don't want you so they've replaced you. It's what contractors are for. It's what notice periods are for. It's not typical to give time to get in a new role, particularly 4-6 weeks. I've never heard of that and it just seems ridiculous. If that is normal then I'd go back to the statement before that there is no way you can have been outside. That's a clear case of mutuality of obligation so you are inside all day long. Someone has forgotted how to be a contractor.

At no point did the global services company raise delivery issues with me, and thus, there was never any opportunity to discuss or even course correct their perceived issues. At no point did anyone call me, meet with me, nor communicate with me that there were background issues. There is no record of any feedback, there are no emails, and there were no meetings. It's a stitch up, and the people around me say it's a stitch up. The global IT company went from from "see you when you get back" on the Friday, to terminating on the Monday.

Yep. That's how it rolls. They don't need you, found an alternative and you are out. It's part of being an expensive temporary resource in a BAU roll. It's got to end one day and as you are on a rolling BAU gig it's got to be termination rather than contract endind. How else did you think it would end?

The reasons given to the Agency for termination for termination were bogus. (or at least: I accept they're legitimate to the degree that we can all make something up, and if we don't communicate, well it happened to its the truth right?)

Who cares. Doesn't matter what reason. You aren't wanted, you get terminated and move on. Reasons don't matter a jot. I suspect looking at the theme you could be wrong about the bogus reasons as you do appear to think you've been targetted unfairly which I don't think is the case. You just aren't taking it very well.

It's been suggested to me that the real motivation behind terminating me was because they want a staff member to take over the leadership role I was in (okay fine so why harm me like this?).

What's bogus about that? Every company should be replacing BAU contractors with perms. Sounds like a perfectly good reason to me.

My skills are in demand and I found a very similar role within a day or so, but because of bureaucratic issues related to paperwork, I cannot start it for 6 weeks [since the termination].

The supply chain I am in is: I am an employee of an umbrella company, who provide me as an individual to fill an inside IR35 role offered by the Agency, supplying me to a large global IT company's services division, who in turn provide a service to a public sector end client.

With this gap opening up before I can start the new role for the same public sector client, am I in any position where I might hold the global company to account for loss of earnings, the bogus termination reasons, or the unreasonable/vexatious behaviours? What I've been through would never have passed muster for enployees of course, it would look a lot like unlawful dismissal.

You are a contractor, you have no rights. You didn't earn it so you can't sue them for it. You are just getting ridiculous now. It wouldn't have passed muster for employees, do you know why? Because you aren't an employee. You are a highly paid temporary resource. You work when they want you to work and you leave when they want you to leave. You've either got completely the wrong idea of contracting or you've been there so long you've become part and parcel of the organisation. Both are your fault at the end of the day.

BTW this wouldn't be your first gig would it? The smell of permie is strong in this thread.

Time to pull your big non gendered pants on and move on. You haven't been treated unfairly, you've been treated like a contractor. Forget the victim mentaility and just get on finding your next gig.

[stillalive]

Where I work - it is normal to throw contractors a bone and give them clear warning about whether they're being extended or not. Or if terminating early, to let them get into the next role. It's not normal to terminate when they're taking some leave. Maybe there are sharper practices in your industry.

[Fred Bloggs]

Again, another one??? When are folks going to realise it's part and parcel of being a flexible resource, in other words, someone who can be hired and fired at will.

Far better to put all the energy into finding the next gig than moaning about it here where there's going to be little, if any, sympathy.

[PerfectStorm]

This sort of thing is all part of the deal that comes with being paid a bit more when times are good.

Also, "leadership role I was in" - as a contractor?

[Lance]

Where I work - it is normal to throw contractors a bone and give them clear warning about whether they're being extended or not. Or if terminating early, to let them get into the next role. It's not normal to terminate when they're taking some leave. Maybe there are sharper practices in your industry.

OK then.
You must have ballsed up really badly and got yourself fired.

HTH...

[northernladuk]

Where I work - it is normal to throw contractors a bone and give them clear warning about whether they're being extended or not. Or if terminating early, to let them get into the next role. It's not normal to terminate when they're taking some leave. Maybe there are sharper practices in your industry.

Well I guess you are facing inside gigs for the rest of your contracting career then. Some clients do if planning allows it and you've got some decent people on board but it's not a given. It's a favour at best. You wouldn't keep paying your builder if you didn't need him until he got his next piece of work would you?

Sharper practices meaning adhering to the contract and the tax status of the role? I'm glad there is.

[Paralytic]

Not sure what the issue is here - the only time I've been given notice mid contract is when another project in the company was cancelled, and a number of permanent staff were made available. Once just happened to have some skills I had, and I was replaced.

It sucks, but it's part of being in business.

The issue is, you're thinking like an employee.

[jmo21]

Unfortunately, I am sure it does happen that some client co's feels they need to make up a reason in order to "fire" a contractor, when, as others above have said, they usually do not need to do that.

If that is the case for the OP, I can understand being annoyed about that part. It could potentially have ramifications for him down the line with the agency, or a colleague at client co who only heard the "lie", causing him to not get future work.

Does the OP have a case for that? Maybe? Can he prove it? Maybe, maybe not. Is it worth pursuing? Highly unlikely IMHO.

"We no longer want to continue this contract, and are exercising the termination clause" is entirely sufficient. If they don't provide work for any notice period in the contract then it is effectively an "out the door that day" situation.

Either way (the sh!tty made up reason, or the normal "we don't want to continue this contract"), if they don't give you work, you cannot bill, so the contract is over, there is nothing you can do.