Breached notice period

[Jeebsy]

+1 to this. The theory may be right but the way they are going about it is wholly wrong.

An interesting thread for the 'Call in sick to get out of a notice period' crowd.

If I could have gone in to work I would. Knew if I took a day off during notice it would effectively be two days lost. It's one thing making sure you don't have any holidays during your notice but asking someone not to be ill for a month seems a bit of a stretch. Once I handed in my notice I made plans which couldn't be changed.

[Old Greg]

If I could have gone in to work I would. Knew if I took a day off during notice it would effectively be two days lost. It's one thing making sure you don't have any holidays during your notice but asking someone not to be ill for a month seems a bit of a stretch. Once I handed in my notice I made plans which couldn't be changed.

Have you got a force majeure clause?

[SueEllen]

If I could have gone in to work I would. Knew if I took a day off during notice it would effectively be two days lost. It's one thing making sure you don't have any holidays during your notice but asking someone not to be ill for a month seems a bit of a stretch. Once I handed in my notice I made plans which couldn't be changed.

It's a contract for services not a contract of employment.

[mudskipper]

Do you have a substitution clause? Offer to send a subbie for 2 days. No doubt they'll decline.

[Jeebsy]

Do you have a substitution clause? Offer to send a subbie for 2 days. No doubt they'll decline.

Haha, did think about that.

[psychocandy]

It would be good to get some proper advice rather than from us bunch of amateurs.

It looks to me that 18 days have been worked and invoiced and that invoice should be paid.

It the agency then wants to charge the contractor company for 'payment in lieu of notice' then it should invoice the contractor company for an amount which it justifies either through the contractual terms or by demonstrating loss. Part payment of invoice seems peculiar to me and I'm not sure how it can be justified.

Does opt in have an effect anyone? If a timesheet is signed for 18 days and submitted with an invoice, shouldn't that invoice be paid?

+1

Never seen this before where the notice period states actual days that have to be worked. Its almost always a time period to serve notice.

BUT, even if you are in breach by only working 18 days and not 20 then agency can't 'decide' to fine you 2 days pay because of it just because they feel like it.

If you worked those days, you're due payment. If the agency feel you have breached then they are within their rights to follow this up as they see fit.

And the bit about having to give 20 days notice after a contract extension is just nuts. Surely this is not legal. How on earth can a contract have a term dictating how another contract (the extension) is dealt with? Surely its a basic of law that a contract like this ends on a certain date after which neither party is obliged to enter into another contract (the extension).

Sounds like agency/client want it all ways here. So what happens if client/agent offers extension 1 day before end of contract. Are you then obliged to accept and work at least 19 days of the new contract?

[psychocandy]

They do this with everyone and are strict about it. Some people just left without serving an notice and lost a full month's invoice.

Seems a bit of a split in opinion, might send one firmly worded email and if they're not receptive just drop it.

What. They worked for the month and then didnt get paid for it at all because they gave no notice. **** that!

OP - Which agency is this?

[northernladuk]

+1

Never seen this before where the notice period states actual days that have to be worked. Its almost always a time period to serve notice.

Doesn't matter what is normal, it's what is in the contract.

BUT, even if you are in breach by only working 18 days and not 20 then agency can't 'decide' to fine you 2 days pay because of it just because they feel like it.

Yes they can, it is clearly detailed in the contract as he said in his first post.

If you worked those days, you're due payment. If the agency feel you have breached then they are within their rights to follow this up as they see fit.

This is the only real argument about this. The agent is playing the possession is 9/10ths the law putting the onus on the contractor to argue it.. who naturally won't. I have a feeling if the agent did decide to pay the contractor and then chase him for damages the bill he will get will be considerably more. The time spent looking for the replacement, cost of advertising etc will be just a tad exaggerated I am sure.

And the bit about having to give 20 days notice after a contract extension is just nuts. Surely this is not legal. How on earth can a contract have a term dictating how another contract (the extension) is dealt with? Surely its a basic of law that a contract like this ends on a certain date after which neither party is obliged to enter into another contract (the extension).

It's on the contract so he agreed to it. Legal doesn't come in to it. They have set out an agreement that any extension has to be accepted/declined within 20 days of end of contract. It's a bit harsh but it stops people holding on to the last minute and then using the end of the contract to bail. No entirely unreasonable, particularly if the client has been shafted a number of times already.

Sounds like agency/client want it all ways here. So what happens if client/agent offers extension 1 day before end of contract. Are you then obliged to accept and work at least 19 days of the new contract?

You can't just use the agency/client clause. They are not one and the same. Totally different parties. These rules have been dictated by one or the other, not both. Makes a big difference. If the client then its a bit tough but they are doing nothing more than protecting their business, possibly from hard lessons. If this is purely the agency then they are just being sheer bloody minded.

I would be interested to know exactly who has stated these terms. Is the agent just the mouthpiece from a rather tough client approach or is this the agent being dicks.

[Wanderer]

Doesn't matter what is normal, it's what is in the contract.

BUT, even if you are in breach by only working 18 days and not 20 then agency can't 'decide' to fine you 2 days pay because of it just because they feel like it.
Yes they can, it is clearly detailed in the contract as he said in his first post.

Yes they can, it is clearly detailed in the contract as he said in his first post.

It's only allowable if it is a genuine pre-estimate of the other party’s loss. (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915]).

I read that to mean that the penalty should cover the loss of two days worth of margin rather than two days of the contractor's billing rate which is clearly excessive.

I mean, if the contractor terminated without notice would they have to pay a full month's worth of billable time? Clearly this is excessive and so is the two days. The agency are taking the piss, stand up to them and fight the bastards.

[eek]

Opted in or opted out?

I'm guessing the latter but is the opt out valid.....