No notice period

[unixman]

I eventually declined to follow the opportunity further. So my CV won't even go to the client. Don't want to argue about it, but my reasons were that if the client feels the need of this clause, it indicates they think contractors leaving mid-term is a significant possibility, which indicates there must be reasons contractors would want to do so, like serious problems on site. Maybe if I already know the client and the term was short, but this was 6 months and a new place. Again, not looking for advice on that point and YMMV.

I hope these clauses don't spread. In my view, it could actually encourage abuse of contractors. If the hiring manager and other staff know you can't leave (so easily), it might be open season on the poor old contractor.

[Yonmons]

In the 16 yrs I have contracted I have had the odd clause like that, but as I always say I have NEVER met a contractor yet that if they wanted out of a contract to succeed.

[jmo21]

Struggling to imagine how awful it would need to be to want to quit before the end if a 6 month project.

Work to contracted hours, if someone is getting all bent out of shape about something just shrug it off and do your work as best you can, and laugh behind their back as you watch the money roll in.

I can understand a permie getting upset as they want to stay in a job, promotion prospects, bonus etc, but s contractor?

There are some places near me I've heard are pretty bad right enough, and I've declined to interview for them.

[MonkeysUncle]

Hi All
Sorry to raise an old thread but I have a similar situation.

Been offered an Inside role, got the contract through and I am contesting 2 parts:

one of which is the notice period:

No Notice - Project Requirements must be completed

I have gone back and asked for clarification but I would ask thoughts on here?

[northernladuk]

Hi All
Sorry to raise an old thread but I have a similar situation.

Been offered an Inside role, got the contract through and I am contesting 2 parts:

one of which is the notice period:

[/FONT]

I have gone back and asked for clarification but I would ask thoughts on here?

Have you actually read the thread? If you are in a similar situation surely you've resurrected a thread that actually discusses your situation.

What do you want clarifying? It says no notice. Got to stay until work completed. What bit about that is confusing you?

EDIT : Just read back and the whole thread discusses the no notice point. I can't see what your issue is.

[Lance]

Hi All
Sorry to raise an old thread but I have a similar situation.

Been offered an Inside role, got the contract through and I am contesting 2 parts:

one of which is the notice period:

[/FONT]

I have gone back and asked for clarification but I would ask thoughts on here?

it's a pointless clause as it's not enforceable in any way. Inside IR35 is a job, and since slavery was abolished it is not possible to force you to work. If you've had enough just don't turn up.

[northernladuk]

it's a pointless clause as it's not enforceable in any way. Inside IR35 is a job, and since slavery was abolished it is not possible to force you to work. If you've had enough just don't turn up.

A simplistic explanation and most likely what is going to happen but technically it's wrong. Being inside IR35 is a red hearings. That's taxation and nothing to do with the contract. The contract still sets the terms of the engagement and notice period (or lack of) is one of them.

If you just don't turn up you are in breach and can be subject to be sued to reclaim losses incurred by the client and/or agent.

Is it enforceable? unlikely but there is fall out. It's highly unlikely you will get your last invoice paid with them keeping the money in lieu of contract breach. That's a whole other topic but it happens and people do lose money on it so to say it's enforceable in reality is completely wrong.

Or was it just a tongue in cheek comment and I've had a moment?

[Lance]

A simplistic explanation and most likely what is going to happen but technically it's wrong. Being inside IR35 is a red hearings. That's taxation and nothing to do with the contract. The contract still sets the terms of the engagement and notice period (or lack of) is one of them.

If you just don't turn up you are in breach and can be subject to be sued to reclaim losses incurred by the client and/or agent.

Is it enforceable? unlikely but there is fall out. It's highly unlikely you will get your last invoice paid with them keeping the money in lieu of contract breach. That's a whole other topic but it happens and people do lose money on it so to say it's enforceable in reality is completely wrong.

Or was it just a tongue in cheek comment and I've had a moment?

I'm assuming an umbrella is involved. Therefore it is an employment contract.
The client can try and sue the agency. The agency can try and sue the umbrella.
The umbrella's only recourse is via employment law. Whether it's a 'contract' role or not doesn't escape the fact that legally employment law is what's valid.

And as for invoice not getting paid.... If the worker can prove they've done the work, then they are due their wages for that work, immaterial of any notice allowed or not, and immaterial of whether the umbrella company has been paid.

IANAL

[northernladuk]

I'm assuming an umbrella is involved. Therefore it is an employment contract.
The client can try and sue the agency. The agency can try and sue the umbrella.
The umbrella's only recourse is via employment law. Whether it's a 'contract' role or not doesn't escape the fact that legally employment law is what's valid.

Hmm that's true but there is an overarching contract of employment with the umbrella which has it's own notice periods but this is to leave the umbrella. Underneath that is the contract for the work to be done with the client which has it's own terms including notice. The employment contract will continue with no end date where the client contract is for a finite time.

Does raise an interesting question about what happens if the contractor invokes notice with the brolly during the term that no notice is allowed with the client but that becomes the umbrellas problem as that's who the contract is with. Problem is in these cases the reality doesn't always follow what should be done i.e. when agents don't pay last invoice when they should.

How will the umbrella deal with an employee that has breached the terms of the engagement?

And as for invoice not getting paid.... If the worker can prove they've done the work, then they are due their wages for that work, immaterial of any notice allowed or not, and immaterial of whether the umbrella company has been paid.

IANAL

Yeah that's a good point but again will be interesting to see what will happen if the situation occurs. So yes, you are right, in theory the umbrella should front the money from the agent and pay regardless but I don't think we've had a situation where this has happened yet have we? We've had it for plenty for outside gigs.

Raises another interesting question as to why is the OP dealing with the contract from the agent/client when it's the brolly that owns it. Seems to make sense that the brolly makes the contractor aware of the terms though.

I could have all this wrong as I've not dealt with a brolly but the provide a poor (in most cases) level of employment as they are just a made up vehicle to get paid with no dedication to the contractor like a proper employee has. I can't see a brolly acting as they really should if a contractor gives notice and incurs payment issues for the brolly. You are right the contractor (employee) should get paid by the brolly regardless but by the same theory agents should pay an outside contracts last invoice and then sue separately for losses but they don't.,

Would be interesting to see a case where this does go wrong and what the fall out of it as what we think should happen as per the contracts isn't always the case.

[MonkeysUncle]

So just to update

Spoke to agent, they said the no notice is to protect me, the client has to keep me on for 6 months and i am expected to stay for 6 months. If I leave before then I am liable for losses.

Agent said all the other contractors have signed this.

I have gone back and said I don't know what's going to happen 5 months down the line. Circumstances may change and I have to give notice i dont want to be liable for this for a change outside of my control.

The agency legal team has basically come back and said the umbrella is your employer, we have asked them to speak to you.

Credit to my umbrella (the one often recommended on here) they are agreeing with me and have gone back and said it should say either immediate or a timeframe set.

Raises another interesting question as to why is the OP dealing with the contract from the agent/client when it's the brolly that owns it. Seems to make sense that the brolly makes the contractor aware of the terms though.

because I have also been asked to sign it and agree to the terms