An unwanted day off....

[WindyAnna]

WA, I assume that your contract is inside ir35. If that is so, then it doesn't make a slightest bit of difference whether you've been told to come in or not except that it inconveniences you to be told you can't work.

If your written terms were agreed with the client to be outside ir35 then you should be working to your terms, which should include no direction and control, as stipulated in the lower and upper contracts, not agreeing to one set of terms and effectively working to another by subtle or even overt coercion, otherwise you still risk being caught in the event of an investigation or at least have an investigation dragged out longer than necessary, if the written terms are regarded as a sham. If that is happening, I would insist that the end client puts in writing or better still write to the end client rep you tend to work to, on your own letterhead confirming what they've said - that the site will be shut and have been refused the option of working over Xmas - so they can sign it off giving you a handy paper audit to file away. Even that won't be foolproof, if the Gordo nosies question the general patterns regarding enforced leave and find out that they made you an exception over others with similar contract terms (I assume they may cross check) but it's better than not having anything at all.

It's inside IR35

[Spoiler]

He's not a permie, so what has that got to do with anything?

Why do so many posters on here respond to questions with completely irrelevant answers that has nothing to do with the questions posed?

My post wasn't about distinctions between permies and contractors being paid or not paid, it was about direction and control.

Whether directed or controlled or not, both contractors and permies are both paid, so your answer is completely irrelevant. Contractors are still being paid because they are being paid on deliverables that takes up a certain amount of time; permies are being paid because they are salaried with permitted periods of leave per year. This is the same for both whether they are working or not working. Therefore, it goes without saying that contractors being paid by deliverables should do these according to their own scheduling not the end client's because the work should belong to the contractor's own company to be sold back to the end client via the timesheet mechanism agreed with the EB or client. If the work belongs to the contractor and they agreed to do work they have yet to complete then the end client should have a work withdrawal reason for enforcing a contractor to do something else. Any other reason is client direction and control.

Please be relevant, otherwise you just end up misleading others.

I generally agree with you here.

However, you've had a go at other posters about being relevant, but in your post you've narrowed it to a contractor with a deliverable. I don't believe all contractors have a defined deliverable. I certainly don't, I just have a contract for x months, on £y per day (consulting role).

The OP certainly didn't state a fixed deliverable . . .

[Denny]

I generally agree with you here.

However, you've had a go at other posters about being relevant, but in your post you've narrowed it to a contractor with a deliverable. I don't believe all contractors have a defined deliverable. I certainly don't, I just have a contract for x months, on £y per day (consulting role).

The OP certainly didn't state a fixed deliverable . . .

I haven't taken anything for granted. I am well aware that there are some contractors more likely to be using brollies and inside ir35, or even contractors with own limited but still inside for a particular contract they may currently be working on. But the original post alluded to a breach of contract terms which they were far from happy about. It wasn't clear whether they were just inconvenienced or suffering a potential breach, hence the query in the first place.

[Spoiler]

But the original post alluded to a breach of contract terms which they were far from happy about. It wasn't clear whether they were just inconvenienced or suffering a potential breach, hence the query in the first place.

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see anything alluding a breach of contract in the OP. I do see someone asking if they're tight not wanting to take one day off.

My point was not every contractor, running a ltd, outside ir35, signs a contract with a defined deliverable, based on a specific deliverable in X days (code monkeys probably, but other roles perhaps not).

[Denny]

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see anything alluding a breach of contract in the OP. I do see someone asking if they're tight not wanting to take one day off.

My point was not every contractor, running a ltd, outside ir35, signs a contract with a defined deliverable, based on a specific deliverable in X days (code monkeys probably, but other roles perhaps not).

That's just the point I am making - if D&C is compromised then ir35 status does become blurred.

We're going round in circles here.

[Spoiler]

We're going round in circles here.

I'm getting off now.

[NotAllThere]

He's not a permie, so what has that got to do with anything?

Why do so many posters on here respond to questions with completely irrelevant answers that has nothing to do with the questions posed?

The fact that you can't follow the logic doesn't mean the answer was irrelevant. It seems perfectly relevant to me.

The idea was that if you are told that you can't work on a particular day, that demonstrated a lack of Mutuality of Obligation. I.e. the client is not obliged to give you work on any particular day, even if you are available. If there is no Mutuality of Obligation, then IR35 does not apply. With a permie and his employer, there is a mutuality of obligation. The employee is obliged to work, and the employer is obliged provide work. If the employer requires the employee not to come to work, then has has to pay the employee.

Now, the logic may be faulty. The reasoning may be wrong. But it isn't irrelevant.

hth

[Denny]

The fact that you can't follow the logic doesn't mean the answer was irrelevant. It seems perfectly relevant to me.

If the employer requires the employee not to come to work, then has has to pay the employee.

hth

I think if you read previous post you will find that this is not always the case, so that is not right either.

When you 'ARE ALL THERE' I might start taking your criticism of my logic seriously.

[NotAllThere]

I think you're confusing me with someone who gives a tulip for your opinion of myself.

[Wilmslow]

Argh - guys, let's make friends please!!

I did not want my thread to get so crazy!!!!