Substitution and One weeks termination

[Incognito]

Isn't this confirming the point that notice periods are effectively irrelevant?

That will all depend on the wording of your contract, but to say that MOO means you have no notice is wrong.

If your contract is vague on the description on what you do, then it could be argued that you are being provided work each day when you turn up. If what you have done is finished then there is no MOO on the employer to give you work to do, hence yes then your argument could stand that effectively there is no notice period.

However, my argument was more on the SoW basis, if you have been contracted to do something, i.e. design an AD forest (with a weeks notice) and half way through that they terminate you, then they have breached that contract, i.e. you were brought in to do a specific piece of work (design the AD forest), it is an express term of that contract that a weeks notice would be provided. However, if you were contracted to do the AD forest in 45 days and you finished it in 30, then the employer is under no obligation to request you to do something else, i.e. Migrate Exchange mailboxes and you are under no obligation to accept it.

As per QDOS

A self employed person will do the work he is being contracted to do and will finish with no expectation of further work.

And Bauer and Cottrell

In the same way if someone is contracted to work on a specific project that finishes early but the engager is then obliged to find further work then there is MOO

If you are contracted to work on a specific piece of work and they terminate you early ignoring any notice period you had, then that's breach of contract.

I have a SoW currently, I have 90 days effort included in that. There is a notice period. Is there a mutual obligation? Absolutely, I do the work, they pay me. Does that mean MOO? No, as the 'irreducible minimum' could be present in either a contract of service or a contract for services.

[Jessica@WhiteFieldTax]

Brighter side of life

As others have said, its contracting / self employment, take it on the chin. Sometimes the reasons are irrational, and you don't get to the bottom of them. Thats life.

The small bright glimmer, is to keep a note of this and refer to it if you ever get a IR35 investigation: its good evidence of business risk and non disguised employment.

[Boo]

"somehow" the client and my "helpful" contractor got chatting

"Well thar's ya problem!"

Sorry not to be more helpful but if you will tell your competitors where juicy tidbits of work can be found...

As for payment and notice you will need to read your contract to see what that says, as a contractor you have no other entitlement.


Boo

[NotAllThere]

Just make sure you get paid for the work you did. That's about the scale of it.

[northernladuk]

Your understanding on MOO is wrong. MOO does not mean that you can turn up the next day and not be guaranteed any work. You have signed a contract, if that contract is for 30 days then you will have to provide 30 days effort and they must accept 30 days effort. MOO means that at the end of that 30 days the other party has no obligation to provide you any more work.

That is why you have a notice period inserted in your contract, if either party did want to end the contract early they have a way of doing so.

Interesting stuff and it would appear you are quite correct. I think quite a few of us have this one wrong as well. Great links and explanation though.

[Wanderer]

I got offered a 10 week contract 5 weeks ago, it was terminated 2 days ago, the reason they gave (even tho they have to give one weeks notice in writting (which I received yesterday via the agent)) was I used a substitute without their permission? I had an issue with childcare 3 weeks into the contract so contacted another contractor (who I knew the client knew about) and asked for some technical help on a solution (I paid him for this and DIDN'T bill the client this or the day and a half I missed of work)

Sorry to hear that you got binned. Sometimes it's difficult to know the real reason behind their decision - I've seen clients that just like to take their frustrations out on contractors pretty much for the fun of it. Presuming that they really did see what you did as misconduct, it may be worth talking it through with the client on the basis that you thought you were acting within your remit as a consultant and offer them an apology in an effort to not burn your bridges.

As for getting paid, my view is that they owe you for the week's notice even if you don't work it. Often the agency will refuse to pay and you should check with the client to see if they are actually paying the agency or not. I would be inclined to press the agency for payment of the notice in any case.

Good luck.

[Software]

In my understanding, we cannot just like that ask some person to work with client project.

Even if you want to send some one as a substitute, then you need to formally raise it with client and they have to decide whether to accept or not.

But in your case, i dont think, you can take any action against them.

Search for a new gig. Market is good now....

[d000hg]

I am still convinced this is subcontracting not substitution as I am sure you contract says you must introduce the substitute to the client but anyway.... Doing anything with clients data and solutions that they don't know about is a bad idea period. Helpful or not this is a customers information and not to be used as I see fit. First and foremost are confidentiality trust and respect for your client. Being helpful comes a poor second I am afraid.

In this case, hiring a sub isn't even really what he did - more akin to using ExpertsExchange or something. It reads like he didn't give customer data away, but wanted help with something technical - like me saying "if you can give me sample code which does X I'll pay you £500". But the OP should probably clarify.

While notice and MOO is all well and good, the client should surely have to give a legitimate reason to terminate - even simply "we're allowed to terminate so we are" - rather than to do so on something that is not true. Whether there are any legal angles on that I've no idea but it's one thing to be told "don't come in tomorrow" and another "you have broken the contract".