Terminating Contract Early

[TheFaQQer]

Your manager (probably) reviewed a number of CVs and interviewed at least a couple of candidates before hiring you. Why should he accept your proposed substitute without satisfying himself that the person is right for the job?

I haven't said that the client shouldn't be satisfied that the person is suitable - it would be pretty silly for them just to take your word blindly that the substitute could do the job, unless there was a high level of trust between client and your company.

Most substitution clauses that I've seen have said that the client can refuse if they are not satisfied that the substitute can do the job (or words to that effect). However, I've not seen one where the client can refuse without having a good reason.

It is not sufficient to offer someone in your place.

Why not?

If I am personally unable to do the work, and I have a suitable replacement, then why is it not sufficient for that person to take on the role?

The buyer's perception of a substitute is someone to replace a departing person seamlessly. Why should he put up with one iota of disruption or inconvenience just to suit your change in plans? What is in it for him?

If the client did not mean for the contractor to be able to substitute, then they should not include it in the contract. However, having put the clause in the contract, then they need to stick to it.

Let's not get too carried away with our own rhetoric...... nobody really believes the right of substitution is anything other than an IR35 factor, do they? As far as I know such a right did not enter into any freelance contractual dealings prior to IR35.

I cannot comment on what happened prior to IR35, since I wasn't a contractor then - maybe others can.

I provided a substitute because it meant that the part of the project my company was engaged to deliver could continue progressing while I was personally unavailable. My providing a substitute resulted in a reduction in the level of inconvenience and disruption for the client, increased customer satisfaction, and the delivery of the project on time rather than being delayed. So why wouldn't I offer that level of service to the client?

[SueEllen]

Your manager (probably) reviewed a number of CVs and interviewed at least a couple of candidates before hiring you. Why should he accept your proposed substitute without satisfying himself that the person is right for the job?
.

Have you ever been asked by a client who needs more contractors with similar skill sets to you, if you know of more people?

If you have then you can understand why a client is happy to accept a sub.

If an agent sends a candidate over there is nothing to recommend them except their CV. If you recommend someone with a similar skill set to you then you should know what they should do, understand whether they can do the work involved and will not recommend someone who will make you look bad.

In the first case the client has to interview 2+ people in the second case they only have to interview 1. People tend not to interview people recommended to them as thoroughly as those they don't know.

[northernladuk]

[QUOTE=TheFaQQer;2071667]I haven't said that the client shouldn't be satisfied that the person is suitable - it would be pretty silly for them just to take your word blindly that the substitute could do the job, unless there was a high level of trust between client and your company.

Most substitution clauses that I've seen have said that the client can refuse if they are not satisfied that the substitute can do the job (or words to that effect). However, I've not seen one where the client can refuse without having a good reason. [quote]

I've had a couple that got picked up by the QDOS review and had to have it reworded. The funny thing is the agent accepted it but it's the client's call. Does make me worry a little.

Why not?

If I am personally unable to do the work, and I have a suitable replacement, then why is it not sufficient for that person to take on the role?

Because, I think, in this instance we are assuming you are not available to do the handover to offer the seemless integration of your sub. If you can't deliver work you can't deliver your sub. Client is more likely to rip the contract up and go find someone else surely.

If the client did not mean for the contractor to be able to substitute, then they should not include it in the contract. However, having put the clause in the contract, then they need to stick to it.

Hmm, all very nice theory. Problem arises when clients that won't genuinely take a sub don't have it in the contract so no one will apply so they stick it in to play lip service. We aren't helping the situation by demanding sub clauses for IR35 purposes.

I cannot comment on what happened prior to IR35, since I wasn't a contractor then - maybe others can.

I provided a substitute because it meant that the part of the project my company was engaged to deliver could continue progressing while I was personally unavailable. My providing a substitute resulted in a reduction in the level of inconvenience and disruption for the client, increased customer satisfaction, and the delivery of the project on time rather than being delayed. So why wouldn't I offer that level of service to the client?

Nothing wrong with that at all. Just got to try and change a large majority of clients attitudes now

[TheFaQQer]

Client is more likely to rip the contract up and go find someone else surely.

Which in this case is exactly what the OP wants...

[psychocandy]

Never met a client yet who will accept a sub. Like someone said they interview the PERSON not the COMPANY. MAybe its not how it should be but thats how it is.

Its not like when they sign a contract with a big consultancy and then dont mind who they send in.

[SueEllen]

Never met a client yet who will accept a sub. Like someone said they interview the PERSON not the COMPANY. MAybe its not how it should be but thats how it is.

Its not like when they sign a contract with a big consultancy and then dont mind who they send in.

I've met clients who accept subs and having worked in places with large consultancy, some clients definitely care who is sent in.

[TheFaQQer]

I've met clients who accept subs and having worked in places with large consultancy, some clients definitely care who is sent in.

This.

As I've said in this thread, I've subbed work out to a friend of mine when I wasn't available.

And when I was permie, I used to get resource requests that said "Key skills: Must be called <my name>". At one stage, Churchill insurance were threatening to walk away from the contract because they had been told that they could get me in as a named resource and were then told that I wasn't available. It went to the UK MD to resolve and schmooze it.

[icemancomeths]

They are not willing to accept a sub, they are saying " We have given you the contract, for your skills etc..."

I have offered a seamless handover at no cost to them but they still refuse.

[GillsMan]

They are not willing to accept a sub, they are saying " We have given you the contract, for your skills etc..."

I have offered a seamless handover at no cost to them but they still refuse.

It does look like you're going to have to see that contract out I'm afraid. Even though they know you want to leave, they still want you to stay. Little weird, but I can see a dozen scenarios where they would still want to keep someone one, even though they want to leave. I think you're going to need to stay IMO.

[GillsMan]

Never met a client yet who will accept a sub. Like someone said they interview the PERSON not the COMPANY. MAybe its not how it should be but thats how it is.

Its not like when they sign a contract with a big consultancy and then dont mind who they send in.

I managed to get Barclays to accept my sub.