Reply to: Contract Terminated

[psychocandy]

+1 why come up with bollox about performance issues to get rid of a contractor, just say no work equals no pay, end of, some clients really don't know how this game works!

Stupidity I reckon. Previous contractors had been given notice.
Client had lightbulb notice and thought "hey I can save a few weeks here if I say this".
Not realisign they could have given notice and then said just dont come in.

[psychocandy]

Granted but if the OP can show he was there for 3 months with no issues it makes their 'we got rid because he was tulip' excuse embarrassing to say the least.

Yes. Stupid way to do it IMHO but clients can be like that. It seems obvious that after 3 months chances are they couldnt say that.

But like I said, clients motives appear to be just get rid of quick to save money asap.

[northernladuk]

Three. the home team, the away team, the truth.

A very good point indeed.

[ASB]

Always two sides to every story though. We've heard one....

Three. the home team, the away team, the truth.

[SlipTheJab]

If you get rid of people using existing clauses and don't make it personal then you don't generate ill feeling.

If you keep saying the majority of your permanent staff and contractors you got rid of was due to performance issues then those people will tell everyone that your company is tulip. This is one reason why some companies pay more that statutory redundancy.

+1 why come up with bollox about performance issues to get rid of a contractor, just say no work equals no pay, end of, some clients really don't know how this game works!

[northernladuk]

If you get rid of people using existing clauses and don't make it personal then you don't generate ill feeling.

Tell PC that lol.

[SueEllen]

Indeed so they will get rid of them using existing clauses which is exactly what happened here.

If you get rid of people using existing clauses and don't make it personal then you don't generate ill feeling.

If you keep saying the majority of your permanent staff and contractors you got rid of was due to performance issues then those people will tell everyone that your company is tulip. This is one reason why some companies pay more that statutory redundancy.

[northernladuk]

To keep a contractor or worker on for months or even years before they state they are under performing means there is a management problem.

And I've got that changed in my own contracts....

Indeed so they will get rid of them using existing clauses which is exactly what happened here. Some people have to appreciate plodding on like or worse than a permie is not part of the game so instant termination under clause the OP has is highly possible.

Of course the sad down side of this is it will be abused to get rid for reasons other than poor performance.

[SueEllen]

And in some cases they get rid of under performing contractors who are convinced they are great and have done nothing wrong.


That's never going to happen.

To keep a contractor or worker on for months or even years before they state they are under performing means there is a management problem.

And I've got that changed in my own contracts....

[northernladuk]

They will make up things, and in some cases they make up evidence.

And in some cases they get rid of under performing contractors who are convinced they are great and have done nothing wrong. Something that will be on the increase now every man and his dog go contracting and don't understand they have to be better than the pennies IMO.

The OP needs to ensure his next contract doesn't say they can get rid of you for any reason possible.

That's never going to happen.

[SueEllen]

Granted but if the OP can show he was there for 3 months with no issues it makes their 'we got rid because he was tulip' excuse embarrassing to say the least.

They will make up things, and in some cases they make up evidence.

The OP needs to ensure his next contract doesn't say they can get rid of you for any reason possible.

It's generally hard to change that clause but it can be done. It's probably easier if you can fall into one of the groups under the equality act. Companies don't want to be known for an -ism as you may have been intelligent enough to get proof.

They will still tell you to go but they won't lie about the reason e.g. they will say the project's been canned.

Strangely companies don't realise they get a bad reputation for continually dumping workers after months or even years, and claiming they were dissatisfied.

One of my ex-employers has difficulties getting both permanent staff and contract due to this. Agents tell me every time there is a vacancy that contractors who have heard about them refuse to work for them, and that they have gone to recruit in Europe but people decline them after initially accepting the offer.

[stek]

I would like to claim damages for money lost during the four week notice period which they failed to give.

hahahaha!

[SlipTheJab]

Yep there are a lot of clients out there who are complete tossers.

If they've got rid of people before then its entirely possible thats the way they work. They get rid when it suits. Chances are you've done nothing wrong. They've just worked out that if they invoke this clause they don't have to give notice and can save a few quid.

As NLUK says they could have done this with others (and you) too and just asked them not to come in. But then they're possibly opening themselves to people trying to get the notice paid.

By telling you you're crap, they get their wish and you're gone straight away. And they know you can prove nothing.

Bang out of order of course but it happens in permie world too. Pointless arguing about why they did it, you'll get nowhere.

If it was me, I'd send them an email telling them I'm expecting the notice period paid and send them an invoice. Perhaps even start a small claim in time. Never know they might think - sod it pay him to get lost.

Of course, with this clause, I don't think you'd ever win in court though. If it did, they'd just say he was crap because of x,y,z and make some crap up. End of court.

But worth a tilt at least. As I always say, for a few quid, it'll provide a bit of entertainment winding the client/agent up a bit.

Granted but if the OP can show he was there for 3 months with no issues it makes their 'we got rid because he was tulip' excuse embarrassing to say the least.

[psychocandy]

It's business and it happens. Don't go in to client hating mode just because you've experienced the sharp end of contracting or you'll end up like PC.

I just hate everyone

[psychocandy]

Yep there are a lot of clients out there who are complete tossers.

If they've got rid of people before then its entirely possible thats the way they work. They get rid when it suits. Chances are you've done nothing wrong. They've just worked out that if they invoke this clause they don't have to give notice and can save a few quid.

As NLUK says they could have done this with others (and you) too and just asked them not to come in. But then they're possibly opening themselves to people trying to get the notice paid.

By telling you you're crap, they get their wish and you're gone straight away. And they know you can prove nothing.

Bang out of order of course but it happens in permie world too. Pointless arguing about why they did it, you'll get nowhere.

If it was me, I'd send them an email telling them I'm expecting the notice period paid and send them an invoice. Perhaps even start a small claim in time. Never know they might think - sod it pay him to get lost.

Of course, with this clause, I don't think you'd ever win in court though. If it did, they'd just say he was crap because of x,y,z and make some crap up. End of court.

But worth a tilt at least. As I always say, for a few quid, it'll provide a bit of entertainment winding the client/agent up a bit.