Mental Health Issues and Contracting

[northernladuk]

The discrimination is not the termination of contract, nor the stated reason, but the actual reason.

Yeah I know what you are saying but I just don't buy it. I can see how HR tulip themselves and pay out, but it surely shouldn't be like that. The actual reason should be irrelevant in this situation. What is the other option? The client pays a supplier AND backfills for that supplier by paying for another one? That is just ludicrous.


Am particularly interested in this one as we have a contractor that is off more than he is in on medical grounds and I have a feeling moves are being made to get rid so will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Old Greg]

Yeah I know what you are saying but I just don't buy it. I can see how HR tulip themselves and pay out, but it surely shouldn't be like that. The actual reason should be irrelevant in this situation. What is the other option? The client pays a supplier AND backfills for that supplier by paying for another one? That is just ludicrous.


Am particularly interested in this one as we have a contractor that is off more than he is in on medical grounds and I have a feeling moves are being made to get rid so will be interesting to see how it plays out.

OK, we've moved on from race. But I brought it up because any blanket ban on mental illness or a specific illness such as depression could be discriminatory on the grounds of disability. However, an assessment on an individual's ability to do the job when that individual has a condition should be a different matter.

[KentPhilip]

In the case of a limited company contractor I also don't see how the end client can be liable for anything, because they don't have a direct relationship with the contractor.
i.e. just because the end client terminates the contract does not cause the intermediary to change its contractual relationship with the worker.
No loss = no legal action.

[SueEllen]

Yeah I know what you are saying but I just don't buy it. I can see how HR tulip themselves and pay out, but it surely shouldn't be like that. The actual reason should be irrelevant in this situation. What is the other option? The client pays a supplier AND backfills for that supplier by paying for another one? That is just ludicrous.


Am particularly interested in this one as we have a contractor that is off more than he is in on medical grounds and I have a feeling moves are being made to get rid so will be interesting to see how it plays out.

The old discrimination laws were amended to cover people like us to ensure the end client couldn't use the fact that we were not directly employed by them to enable them to discriminate on race, sex and disability. After all calling someone racist names in an office can't be acceptable who ever they are.

So the female contractors who did this weren't trying it on as in reality if a contract resource is unavailable after the statutory 2 weeks they need to take off plus a reasonable holiday the client can get someone else.

I was once on the same client site as two pregnant contractors. One came back after a month of giving birth and the other did a handover at 8 months.

[Dactylion]

I was once on the same client site as two pregnant contractors. One came back after a month of giving birth and the other did a handover at 8 months.

I bet she was tired (and sore)

[Cenobite]

Quite torn about this issue. If a contractor is in contract, then say has a problem related to a medical condition and can't work for the foreseeable, then as you're not a permie, then I can see the client has a good case for terminating the contract. I think that's what we sign up for as contractors so it's pretty harsh but fair especially if you claim to be outside IR35.

What troubles me more is when you don't get offered the contract in the first place because or your colour, gender, sexuality, if you have an obvious physical disability (especially when it doesn't affect your ability to do the job) or you've just come out and said at interview that you have some unseen condition. Unfortunately, you never find out if this was the case because you'll be told after the interview that you didn't get it for another more legitimate reason. I still think there needs to be protection against this whether you're a contractor or not.

It's a difficult one.

[JoJoGabor]

In my current engagement, direct with an insurance company, the contract contains this clause...

The company may at any time and without prejudice to any rights or claims it has against the consultant company by notice in writing, terminate this agreement... If the individual shall become of unsound mind, be or become a patient under any mental health legislation....

I've never seen that before in a contract.

[jmo21]

then as you're not a permie, then I can see the client has a good case for terminating the contract.

They do not need to have a "good case".

They do not need to give a reason.

[northernladuk]

But in my mind you are mixing two issues up there. One is a faceless company, the other is the person themselves. One is ok one is totally unacceptable.

Quite torn about this issue. If a contractor is in contract, then say has a problem related to a medical condition and can't work for the foreseeable, then as you're not a permie, then I can see the client has a good case for terminating the contract. I think that's what we sign up for as contractors so it's pretty harsh but fair especially if you claim to be outside IR35.

Faceless company situation. You take the person regardless of any gender, race etc nothing. You take on a supplier and their person. If their person can't deliver for whatever reason contract is terminated. It doesn't matter a hoot what is the matter with the person so zero discrimination. It's about delivery in a B2B contract pure and simple.

What troubles me more is when you don't get offered the contract in the first place because or your colour, gender, sexuality, if you have an obvious physical disability (especially when it doesn't affect your ability to do the job) or you've just come out and said at interview that you have some unseen condition. Unfortunately, you never find out if this was the case because you'll be told after the interview that you didn't get it for another more legitimate reason. I still think there needs to be protection against this whether you're a contractor or not.

This is personal discrimination which is totally different to the first example and is completely wrong. The person should be treated the same way whatever job he has or lifestyle he lives. This has nothing to do with business, permies or contractors. The laws should blanket cover any situation where this kind of discrimination occurs.

The only and only case where personal discrimination should be acceptable would be where the person is found to be the owner of the Suityou01 sockie in which case they can be refused work on that fact alone.

[Cenobite]

They do not need to have a "good case".

They do not need to give a reason.

Suppose I meant "good cause".