Termination

[northernladuk]

It's a clear cut easy legal dispute - almost all would settle before it goes to hearing as otherwise it would get into public domain.

It's not unreasonable or morally wrong to ask somebody to honour contract that they've signed.

Indeed and I can't argue with that if he wants to take it that far. We just need a couple, if not a single test case to put in front of clients and set a precedence.

[AtW]

Indeed and I can't argue with that if he wants to take it that far. We just need a couple, if not a single test case to put in front of clients and set a precedence.

After I am done with SKA I might fund a couple of those

[SueEllen]

After I am done with SKA I might fund a couple of those

NLUK doesn't believe me that the only client to terminate me early paid me my notice period as per the contract clause.

On the other hand when there was no work to do I took the time off (happily in each case).

In case of holiday periods not working the clients have always been upfront if asked - it's if there is an agency in the middle that confusion occurs.

Agents are just f***ing thick people and generally except with small agencies they don't know what the hell is in the upper contract.

[Wanderer]

No, it means we'll either give you 4 weeks work for you to earn the money in the normal way, or we'll compensate you for your loss. If that's not the intent, then why put it in the contract?

Yep, I agree with VectraMan and AtW.

All the people who say the contractual notice period "means nothing because there is no MOO" cannot provide a reasonable explanation to the question why does the contract specify a notice period if it's meaningless?

[malvolio]

why does the contract specify a notice period if it's meaningless?

Because contracts are written by agencies who have sold you to the client as one of their resources and therefore have client/agency contracts that reflect a permie employment model. That causes other problems so they then add other clauses to make them look like they are outside IR35. However, being fundemantally stupid and only interested in the bottom line, rather than the actual arrangements, and since the contracts are derafted by lawuers versed in Human Remains law, they chuck in pseudo-employment conditions such as notice periods to make the contract look more appealing to the average contractor.

If you know the reality, notice periods are meaningless. Hence my previous comment. Other clauses will engate the notice period, most notably the one that says no work = no money.

[AtW]

If you know the reality, notice periods are meaningless. Hence my previous comment. Other clauses will engate the notice period, most notably the one that says no work = no money.

It's not the case for all contracts, even though I am sure some or maybe even many would be written as such.

And let's not assume here that everybody works via agency who writes the contract.

[SueEllen]

Because contracts are written by agencies who have sold you to the client as one of their resources and therefore have client/agency contracts that reflect a permie employment model. That causes other problems so they then add other clauses to make them look like they are outside IR35. However, being fundemantally stupid and only interested in the bottom line, rather than the actual arrangements, and since the contracts are derafted by lawuers versed in Human Remains law, they chuck in pseudo-employment conditions such as notice periods to make the contract look more appealing to the average contractor.

If you know the reality, notice periods are meaningless. Hence my previous comment. Other clauses will engate the notice period, most notably the one that says no work = no money.

You are presuming:
1. People don't go direct and have notice periods in put in their contracts by the client,
2. Clients don't insist certain terms including notice periods must be in the agency's contract with the contractor

Lots of contracts both agencies and direct clients use are from a standard template. Some agencies then add extra terms to these templates which if you get your solicitor to review they rip apart.

[Contreras]

All the people who say the contractual notice period "means nothing because there is no MOO" cannot provide a reasonable explanation to the question why does the contract specify a notice period if it's meaningless?

Because contracts are written by agencies who have sold you to the client as one of their resources and therefore have client/agency contracts that reflect a permie employment model. That causes other problems so they then add other clauses to make them look like they are outside IR35. However, being fundemantally stupid and only interested in the bottom line, rather than the actual arrangements, and since the contracts are derafted by lawuers versed in Human Remains law, they chuck in pseudo-employment conditions such as notice periods to make the contract look more appealing to the average contractor.

If you know the reality, notice periods are meaningless. Hence my previous comment. Other clauses will engate the notice period, most notably the one that says no work = no money.

Let's rephrase the question. Why do all the PCG/qdos contract templates specify a notice period if it's meaningless?

To "make the contract look more appealing to the average contractor"? - unlikely.

[eek]

Let's rephrase the question. Why do all the PCG/qdos contract templates specify a notice period if it's meaningless?

To "make the contract look more appealing to the average contractor"? - unlikely.

Actually they are not meaningless. Many companies will give and pay for notice because they believe it is the done thing (heck the company with the worst working conditions possibly gave me 4 weeks notice - it meant when they phoned up 3 months later with an issue I helped them fix it). It gives company a polite friendly way of removing resources in a controlled manner.

If a contractor is useless you get rid of them asap by removing work and using MOO, if you want to get rid of a contractor but potentially want to use them again you serve notice keeping everything polite.

[VectraMan]

they chuck in pseudo-employment conditions such as notice periods to make the contract look more appealing to the average contractor.

So it's a deliberate attempt to mislead? Surely a judge would take a dim view of that and side with the contractor.

And if there's two contradictory clauses without it being clear that one takes priority over the other, a judge would side with the party that didn't draft the contract.

But IANAL.

If it's in any way an IR35 issue, then any IR35 contract review would have the notice periods removed.