Out of interest, I just had a look at Jobserve and the very first job I found when I hit search had a qualifier at the bottom that said the agency was acting in the role of Employment Business. Would such a blunt statement override any claims to the contrary in court? After all, if you're putting yourself out as an Employment Business then you cannot then hide from the responsibilities that go with it.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
The "Conduct Reg's" are virtually unenforceable against your intermediary
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by Rory Dwyer View PostDear Malvolio,
You can declare yourself opted in or opted out, no declaration or an ineffective declaration means you by default you are opted in.
Putting the "Conduct Reg's" to one side for the moment, the issue here is "the predominate control" issue and not just "any control" which in legal terms is considered the definite article.Blog? What blog...?Comment
-
Originally posted by DirtyDog View PostLooking at some of my old contracts, I see that at least one of them says "<agency> enters into this Contract in its capacity as an Employment Business as defined in the Conduct Regulations"
Since part of the judgement seems to hinge on CNL not being defined as an Employment Business (and therefore there is nothing to opt out of), I'd be interested to see whether that has any impact on any future cases.
The wording of the parties has no relevance if pre-dominant control has not passed, or can not be proven to have passed.
This also does not take into account, the position of the hirer in that declaration.Comment
-
Originally posted by Rory Dwyer View PostThe contractor was one of circa 20 contractors at this particular client. He along with another and a sales manager of our company, whilst under contract and employed respectively set up a competing company 'SAP Select Ltd' unbeknownst to the Directors of CNL and attempted to acquire the proprietary confidential information of CNL.
This act, regardless of being unethical and immoral, was a clear breach of contract and the monies were withheld for damages, of which they were substantial. That is another issue, which I am not at liberty to discuss due to on-going civil litigation.
Interestingly, another reason why the "Conduct Reg's" could not be enforced in this regard also.
All of the other contractors were paid in full and without issue.
So the original complain was about contract breach and they have used the this element to try get out of it? I would also like to see the case in detail as from what Rory says the opt in/out case has come off the back of something more telling. The CUK article doesn't really give the whole picture if this is the case.'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
Originally posted by Rory Dwyer View PostDear Dirty Dog,
The wording of the parties has no relevance if pre-dominant control has not passed, or can not be proven to have passed.
This also does not take into account, the position of the hirer in that declaration.
So the judge decided that ultimately, “the issue before me” is whether CNL meets the definition of an ‘employment business,’ as defined under the Employment Agencies Act.
Are you suggesting that the agency can turn round in court and say "oh, we're not an Employment Business, so the agency regulations don't apply"?
Sounds like having your cake and eating it.Originally posted by MaryPoppinsI hadn't really understood this 'pwned' expression until I read DirtyDog's post.Comment
-
Dear Malvolio,
I respect your right to have an opinion, and you are more than welcome to have any opinion you wish. With regards to the "Conduct Reg's" this particular case decision was clearly subject to a higher court ruling and the sitting Judge had no option but to accept the position.
Just as any lower court in the future will be bound by the judgements of the preceding higher court judgements or be open to appeal at the very least.
To ignore it would be folly, regardless of any opinion you may wish to hold.Last edited by Rory Dwyer; 10 March 2014, 20:37.Comment
-
Originally posted by DirtyDog View PostThe CUK article says
I have a contract which says "<agency> is an Employment Business".
Are you suggesting that the agency can turn round in court and say "oh, we're not an Employment Business, so the agency regulations don't apply"?
Sounds like having your cake and eating it.
Anyone care to comment on my post about control as well? Am I barking up the wrong tree or would our efforts to not be controlled by the client also mean they don't apply?'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
Originally posted by DirtyDog View PostThe CUK article says
I have a contract which says "<agency> is an Employment Business".
Are you suggesting that the agency can turn round in court and say "oh, we're not an Employment Business, so the agency regulations don't apply"?
Sounds like having your cake and eating it.
Without being facetious , I could declare myself as "the queen of sheba" but unless I satisfy the statutory definition of "the queen of sheba", I am not "the queen of sheba" in the courts eyesLast edited by Rory Dwyer; 10 March 2014, 17:08.Comment
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostSounds like it to me as well.
Anyone care to comment on my post about control as well? Am I barking up the wrong tree or would our efforts to not be controlled by the client also mean they don't apply?
You are correct, but it goes a lot deeper than what you are suggesting and this also does not take into consideration of the legal responsibilities of the hirer by accepting such a declaration.Last edited by Rory Dwyer; 10 March 2014, 17:09.Comment
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostSo this has been going on a long time? This company was dissolved in 2011 with Mr Butt resigning in 2010.
So the original complain was about contract breach and they have used the this element to try get out of it? I would also like to see the case in detail as from what Rory says the opt in/out case has come off the back of something more telling. The CUK article doesn't really give the whole picture if this is the case.
Yes, some people are still daft enough to sign personal indemnities...Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment