Terminated whilest serving notice

[mavster07]

I agree with the above comment. 4 weeks notice is 4 weeks notice at the end of the day and if they told you to leave after 2 weeks then they should pay you off for the remainder. I would demand this from them.

I would invoice them for the full 4 weeks and stick to it. If they refuse to pay, advise them it will be pursued as a debt through the usual channels.

Before doing that, however, 'tap' the HR and Recruitment function of the client and explain the situation, making it known that you did endeavour to complete your notice period and wish to conclude the business relationship positively by invoicing for your full notice period but that your commercial right is to treat all invoices as payable and it would be pursued. They'll know what that means and might pull back from the brink. Sounds like you did get tripped up by someone trigger happy to exercise their notice without getting the right advice first...their bad luck and your good fortune....

[MarillionFan]

Well you have something else to go to so thats good.

I would suggest what you do is write down the individuals name, get his email address and sign him up to a number of porn sites & freeby sites. Childish but always makes me smile.

Then put his name off to one side. The adage of 'whats goes around comes around' tends to be true.

I had a massive run in with a permie back in 2002 at a client site. Imagine my surprise when in 2008 the same guy applied to my new company where I was on the interviewing panel!

[Wanderer]

Or better still, learn about contract law !

My understanding is that you can claim for "losses" incurred by the early termination of the contract. If you started working on a new contract immediately after leaving the first one, you wouldn't have such a strong case, surely? What if the client called your bluff and told you to come back and finish the contract or counter sued claiming that you didn't perform up to the standard required and started a big fight?

Fair point about sticking up for your business but in my opinion, if you've got other work to get on with then I don't think it's worth starting a fight over. If you're not working and you've suffered real losses then maybe.

And what the others said about MOO and IR35 too - it would be a pyrric victory if it put you inside IR35...

[BolshieBastard]

What poor advice.

IF they ask you to leave whilst serving notice, then they are legally obligated to pay out your notice period. Its the law.

You should invoice them for the remainder of the contract and if necessary take it all the way to enforce your rights with respect to the contract. Because they served 4 weeks notice, your presence there indicates you were prepared to honour your notice period, and it was they who were not. As such, you have a good legal case to obtain full payment. It will teach them a lesson not to mess around contractors and treat them like garbage.

Totally agree, there has been poor advice.

The correct MO would be to do a day's work for the daily rate. Being a contractor isnt about doing the work of 2, 3 or 4 people.

The OP should have said to the permie he has no problem doing the work he is expected but shovelling the work of 2 or more people onto him runs the risk of that extra work not being done. When the permie said like it or lump it, the OP should have responded that he can do the work expected of him but not an unreasonable amount of work.

He should also have told the permie if he wanted the OP to leave early, he'd have to arrange paying up the notice period.

If your contract is outside of IR35, then the above would push it inside. For an outside IR35 contract, there should be no Mutuality of Obligation (MOO). Therefore if they give you no work, or you don't turn up, you don't get paid. To do as Mavster07 states, would imply MOO and put you inside of IR35with all the inherent implications.

Just because you are serving notice, does not mean they have to provide paid work. You are not an employee.

In short, move on.

Sorry this is wrong. MOO isnt in question here. Its paying money in lieu of serving the full notice period. There is no requirement to offer work or accept it. Termination has nothing to do with MOO.

[SueEllen]

Totally agree, there has been poor advice.

The correct MO would be to do a day's work for the daily rate. Being a contractor isnt about doing the work of 2, 3 or 4 people.

The OP should have said to the permie he has no problem doing the work he is expected but shovelling the work of 2 or more people onto him runs the risk of that extra work not being done. When the permie said like it or lump it, the OP should have responded that he can do the work expected of him but not an unreasonable amount of work.

The OP simply "suggested" it wasn't a good idea to do this rather than telling the permie straight that it was a breach of contract.

That kind of indicates the OP didn't have clear deliverables and an indication of the amount of work expected of his company written into the contact.

Also telling someone something only verbally that they are giving out too much work means they can easily lie about it later.

If you are going to fight people make sure:
1. You have got a record of events in writing preferably in a sent email or letter to someone involved as people lie even in front of judges.
2. Your company contract clearly states what your deliverables etc are.

He should also have told the permie if he wanted the OP to leave early, he'd have to arrange paying up the notice period.

As other have pointed out it would be quite easy for the permie (or more likely someone higher up with a bit of sense) to state there is no more work available for the next 2 weeks or even turn it around and say the OP wanted to leave early and they let him.

Sorry this is wrong. MOO isnt in question here. Its paying money in lieu of serving the full notice period. There is no requirement to offer work or accept it. Termination has nothing to do with MOO.

While termination early of commercial contracts can legally mean that penalty clauses can apply whether paying the penalty can be wiggled out of depends on the wording of the entire contract.

As there is nothing in writing proving that the permie was being nasty it's very easy for the client to make up another reason why you were terminated/left early letting them off paying the penalty.

I suggest OP if you are going to fight this and your original contract wasn't checked out by a solicitor you get it checked out now as if you are on a decent contract rate it's cheaper for the client to get a solicitor to write you a nasty letter or two then pay up.