Contract Issues / Notice Periods

[rootsnall]

The reality or the theory?

So same as always. So if in theory the agent can chase the contractor for loss of earnings, so could the contractor when terminated by the agent ? I was under the impression that the wording/meaning of more modern contracts allowed the agent to say sorry there is no work to do, and also the contractor to say sorry I can't come in ( ie. in mid contract ), but looks like that is not the case.

[northernladuk]

So same as always. So if in theory the agent can chase the contractor for loss of earnings, so could the contractor when terminated by the agent ? I was under the impression that the wording/meaning of more modern contracts allowed the agent to say sorry there is no work to do, and also the contractor to say sorry I can't come in ( ie. in mid contract ), but looks like that is not the case.

It certainly isn't. There are at least three separate elements here that people often all lump in to one without considering each on it's own merits.

First what you mention above is often perceived as a right using MoO which IMO is incorrect. The client isn't obliged to offer work and the contractor isn't obliged to do it refers to work after the current contract. The contractor is obliged to do the work as he signed the contract just as the client is obliged to pay for work done. A contractor cannot simply say I do not accept todays work. Now it does seem unfair that the client stop paying the contractor if there is no work to do but that comes in to the second point...

We work on a T&M type contract. We have a 6 month contract to work on a pay per day basis. If the work dries up then then there is nothing to do for the contractor, he cannot work so he cannot get a timesheet signed so he doesn't get paid for that day. It's all contracted so it doesn't mean he can turn round and say well if you can do that I don't want to do the work you offer me tomorrow. One is laid out in the contract, the other is just an idiot not understanding... which kind leads on to the third element..

We work in a client/supplier relationship. It just isn't equal. One has cash, other has skills but ultimately we chase the cash. The client does this so I can do it just doesn't work across the board. There are different expectations in the relationship. Sometimes tulip isn't fair, that's the relationship for you.

There is lots of ambiguity here like tulipty clients, idiot contractors and negotiation which can mess up these theory's but IMO that's a quick and dirty view of the situation.

Happy to be corrected on my view on it. CBA to go in to the minute detail though.

[TheFaQQer]

Depends on the organisation

I had someone working for me - said she was taking 2 weeks holiday which was all fine - then we found out she was working at a new contract at a Bank.

I stopped all payments even though she had a signed timesheet for that time and had a brief heated call with the agents where I told them we wouldn't be using them again. (mainly for the guys attitude when he should have actually been apologising not pushing us to pay!)

However I'm sure she's earning more than she was here so its a personal choice really and whether you think you can afford to burn bridges. Doubt many companies would go to the trouble of pursuing you for breach of contract.

So - contractor takes a break from the contract, but you were going to pay her for holiday time anyway?

Sounds more like an employment relationship to me.

[TheFaQQer]

First what you mention above is often perceived as a right using MoO which IMO is incorrect. The client isn't obliged to offer work and the contractor isn't obliged to do it refers to work after the current contract or work that is substantially different to that already agreed. The contractor is obliged to do the work as he signed the contract just as the client is obliged to pay for work done. A contractor cannot simply say I do not accept today's work. Now it does seem unfair that the client stop paying the contractor if there is no work to do but that comes in to the second point...

Added my bit in bold, but I agree with the rest of it.

[northernladuk]

So - contractor takes a break from the contract, but you were going to pay her for holiday time anyway?

Sounds more like an employment relationship to me.

Unless he means she had signed timesheets for time worked before she went on holiday which he stopped so she didn't get paid for time she did work which just isn't cricket.

Were you a contractor at this point TechJinx?

[TechJinx]

So - contractor takes a break from the contract, but you were going to pay her for holiday time anyway?

Sounds more like an employment relationship to me.

No - We have a number of long term contractors and if they take "holiday" it just means they don't get paid for that week or 2.

we only pay for work days/hours worked

Yes - I am and was and you're correct that it was for work done before she left with no notice that had already been signed off. If they'd got invoices in quick they might have gotten away with it......

I should add she also tried to claim she was "sick" when we were expecting her in and we only found out second hand she wasn't coming back in.

It bloody is cricket - they were in breach, we decided not to pay and came to an "amicable" arrangement.

[northernladuk]

No - We have a number of long term contractors and if they take "holiday" it just means they don't get paid for that week or 2.

we only pay for work days/hours worked

Yes - I am and was and you're correct that it was for work done before she left with no notice that had already been signed off. If they'd got invoices in quick they might have gotten away with it......

I should add she also tried to claim she was "sick" when we were expecting her in and we only found out second hand she wasn't coming back in.

It bloody is cricket - they were in breach, we decided not to pay and came to an "amicable" arrangement.

This is a direct engagement I take it. Not just the agents that pull this trick then! p.s. am not arguing the morals, just the point that normally the agent get's the blame when this happens.

[TechJinx]

This is a direct engagement I take it. Not just the agents that pull this trick then! p.s. am not arguing the morals, just the point that normally the agent get's the blame when this happens.

no, it was an agency - its government so we're only allowed to go via agencies (daft as it means we have to pay extra fees but still)

One of their junior bods phoned up when their invoice was rejected and started having a go at one of our junior finance staff on the phone, rude git got his marching orders from me when I heard her getting rather rattled on the phone.

to sum up - she screwed them and us, trying to play both sides and get a new risky contract having the fallback of us if it didn't last 2 weeks. They are annoyed they haven't been paid but our contract is with them so they can take it up with her if they reckon they're out of pocket.

my 2 pence worth anyway

[TheFaQQer]

No - We have a number of long term contractors and if they take "holiday" it just means they don't get paid for that week or 2.

we only pay for work days/hours worked

Yes - I am and was and you're correct that it was for work done before she left with no notice that had already been signed off. If they'd got invoices in quick they might have gotten away with it......

I should add she also tried to claim she was "sick" when we were expecting her in and we only found out second hand she wasn't coming back in.

It bloody is cricket - they were in breach, we decided not to pay and came to an "amicable" arrangement.

So, the contractor asked for two weeks off (shudder) and it was approved (shudder shudder). And because she was away you didn't pay the amount that you were contractually obliged to pay?

Curious.

[SlipTheJab]

Regardless of whether she 'pulled a fast one' you should have paid her for the work she completed (and you signed her timesheets for) regardless.