agency changed contract , i didnt sign, and now they are cutting it short.

[ricflairandy]

Hi guys,

My contract was 4 weeks notice. It was a 3 month contract. I Was inormed after 2 weeks that the contract would be terminated due to lack of work. They then said they would possibly find more work and would keep me updated

Agency then sends me updated contract with 2 weeks notice asking me to sign it. I didnt.

Now 2 weeks later, im told contract is terminated and agency are claiming 2 weeks notice because ive been working on site. I hadnt signed it for that reason. ITs a cheap and low way of getting out of paying my 4 weeks. I didnt sign it as i could see this coming a mile off.

Any advice as the agency is saying its 2 weeks and if i contest it I could end up with nothing.

Sorry for the lack of punctuation and the likes, but im a bit angry

[stek]

MoO

No work, no obligation, no notice, no pay.

[TheFaQQer]

MoO

No work, no obligation, no notice, no pay.

<pedant>Lack of Mutuality of Obligation</pedant>

[TheFaQQer]

Any advice as the agency is saying its 2 weeks and if i contest it I could end up with nothing.

If you contest it, they will pay you what they owe you.

There is nothing to contest - you get paid for the work that you do, so start looking for something to start in two weeks time.

[northernladuk]

MoO

No work, no obligation, no notice, no pay.

Actually this isn't quite right. You have mixed two different things up here so not quite as straight forward as the answer suggests. MoO is about the obligation to offer work once you have fulfilled your contract.. or not for lack of MoO. This lack has been demonstrated because the are terminating you, not finding you something else under the same contract so this is actually a good thing for you IR35 wise.

The no work no pay is not MoO (or lack). It is just no work no pay, end of. Doesn't come under MoO which happens after the work is done.

Great post about it here...

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ination-2.html

Either way, this is why we are taken on as a flexible resource and part of contracting. Do a piece of work, it finishes early or dries up so our work is done. If you expect to get paid for nothing/unworked days and also expect to be given work afterwards you have an IR35 problem on your hands.

Think about it this way... You are getting 4 weeks notice... it is just you don't have anything to do in the last 2 weeks so can't bill for it so same outcome

[ricflairandy]

Thanks,

But surley they cannot just change the notice period and assume im ok with it woutout me signing it. The contract I signed was for my daily rate to be paid for the 3 motnhs and either party would have to provide 4 weeks notice to terminate.

[northernladuk]

Thanks,

But surley they cannot just change the notice period and assume im ok with it woutout me signing it. The contract I signed was for my daily rate to be paid for the 3 motnhs and either party would have to provide 4 weeks notice to terminate.

That should be correct, you have a signed contract so they should be honouring it unless there is a justifiable reason to renegotiate. The problem is that it is completely irrelevant. Notice periods are for permies. You could have a 2 year notice period, if the work dries up you don't bill, end of. Wait 2 years and the contract ends at the correct time.

I think it is the agent not understanding this and trying to correct the problem by making the paperwork match the situation and not realising he doesn't have to. Lack of knoweldge/cojones from the agent I reckon.

Either way nothing good is going to come of it for you so take it on the chin, be professional, thank the agent and the client for the work and call you should they have anything else.

[SueEllen]

Not siging the contract isn't enough to show that you didn't accept the new contract terms.

You need to be able to prove explicitly ideally in writing that you told the agent that the new contract was unacceptable.

In England contracts don't have to be on paper let alone a signed document to make them valid.

In your case not explicity emailing the agency and saying the new contract was unacceptable, but continuing to work for the client and accepting payment from them means the agency can argue that you accepted the new contract due to your conduct.

The only way to argue against this is to lie and say you didn't get the new contract. However the fact that you have been talking to the agency about both contracts means this won't work.

I've had arguments with agents on renewal about new contract terms. I just cross out the new terms which are always stupid things, sign it and return it. The agent then sents me an email stating the extension is on the original terms until we have negiogiated new terms. This is why agents agreeing renewals with me a week before the end of a contract and sending out documentation isn't a good idea.

Regardless the agency has to pay you the two weeks whether you contest it or not. Personally I wouldn't bother contesting it and move on.

[ricflairandy]

The frustrating thing is that the agency only changed the contract once the client mentioned that the work was not there. It was a cheap way to get out of paying the 4 weeks notice.

[SueEllen]

The frustrating thing is that the agency only changed the contract once the client mentioned that the work was not there. It was a cheap way to get out of paying the 4 weeks notice.

Did you tell the agency the new terms wasn't acceptable? If not move on.