Location of Performing Work - D&C?

[Earlyflash1]

Interestingly, the email specifically mentions contractors:

"In normal circumstance, I do not ever expect contractors to work at home".

Otherwise, i'd have just ignored it completely.

[expat]

Interestingly, the email specifically mentions contractors:

"In normal circumstance, I do not ever expect contractors to work at home".

Otherwise, i'd have just ignored it completely.

Looks like you and the new owners may not be able to do business.

Obviously the choice, like the resulting income or lack of it, is completely yours. But if you have worked offsite, and then stop doing so because an email from the boss said that nobody is allowed to, I would love to see how anyone could argue that that is not D&C.

[ratewhore]

Looks like you and the new owners may not be able to do business.

WHS. This guy is going to be a PITA and he'll be wanting to integrate you every way he can.

Be interesting to see what they come back with in response to your email so please do keep us updated

[Earlyflash1]

Agree completely.

I have no intention of changing the way in which I work. If they want to pay additional sums to make me be in the office, great. If not, no problem, we'll part ways, and they can pay me the termination period and I'll have a nice time off.

[Alan @ BroomeAffinity]

If the client wants you to specifically work on-site I sounds like he wants to be in a position to be able to exert D&C. Maybe he isn't used to dealing with contractors?

[Earlyflash1]

If the client wants you to specifically work on-site I sounds like he wants to be in a position to be able to exert D&C. Maybe he isn't used to dealing with contractors?

This is almost certainly true. The incoming company is American and the new head of IT is also American (from New York)... I'm sure that the tax laws there are slightly different.

[expat]

Agree completely.

I have no intention of changing the way in which I work. If they want to pay additional sums to make me be in the office, great. If not, no problem, we'll part ways, and they can pay me the termination period and I'll have a nice time off.

You may have trouble in practice persuading them that you are not in breach of anything, that it is they who propose a change in your contract, which you are free not to agree to, leaving them with the question of what to do next, within a contract that you have not broken. I.e. they are likely to behave as if you are in material breach.

Especially if the new guy is accustomed to being The Boss.

[Platypus]

we'll part ways, and they can pay me the termination period and I'll have a nice time off.

Well if you're sure you can get another role, then do. Best of luck.

[Earlyflash1]

You may have trouble in practice persuading them that you are not in breach of anything, that it is they who propose a change in your contract, which you are free not to agree to, leaving them with the question of what to do next, within a contract that you have not broken. I.e. they are likely to behave as if you are in material breach.

Especially if the new guy is accustomed to being The Boss.

Given I have 0 days notice from my side of the contract, that isn't too hard a question to answer...

Well, sending the email now, we'll see what happens.

[TheFaQQer]

I guess Mal is away...

Depending on the reason for asking you to work onsite, this may or may not impact your IR35 situation. For example, my current contract requires me to be working from the client site because it is a secure government location. This does not amount to direction and control, though.

If the client is asking you to work onsite because they feel that the work needs to be done where you can communicate effectively with their staff, then this may not fall into D&C. If they are asking you to work onsite so that they can tell you what to do and how to do it all day, then obivously it is.

Might be worth calling the PCG legal helpline / Qdos / someone who knows more than us lot on a forum (which isn't that hard to find, surely?)