Managed Service

[coco73]

51-week, 2-yr rule?

Hello all,

I am just about to finish a contract at Barclays (Retail).

I have been here since 16/03/07, official end date is 31/12/07 working through agency 1

I am in negotiations with agency 2 (agency 1 have done their usual disappearing trick when it comes to renewal time!) with regard to a role at Barclaycard. The agent is telling me that I will fall foul of the 51-week rule if i continue a contract within the Barclays group.

Can anyone tell me whether Barclays (Group) operate a 51-week rule or is it a 2-year one?

I contract through my limited company via an agency and "opted-out" of employment regs for most recent contract.

Thanks,

Nick

[kookachoo]

Do you happen to be working at Barclays?!

I've got the same thing here, but they have a 51 week rule, and allegedly a 2 yr rule for all Ltd.CO. workers.

Why I would then want to turn around and claim employment rights and hand over most of my profit for the last year due to causing a scene..

The HR dept just doesn't get it!

[malvolio]

Contract hasn;t changed - apart from some extra "If you do a runner we will charge you for a weeks worth of billings"

I'll get the contract reviewed but I can;t see anything that is different from what i had as a standard contract. It just appears that the contract is now with the agency rather than the end client.

OK, so point 1, if they ccan charge you for not working there is MOO and you're caught. End of discussion. For more on that, look up the recent arguments about notice periods.

Point 2, your contract has always been with the agency, so no difference there. If you were to try and claim employment rights it would be as an employee of the agency, not the bank.

Personally I would not go anywhere near such a deal, but then I'm in the position where I can be picky. Assuming you aren't, you're being screwed.

[Cowboy Bob]

Contract hasn;t changed - apart from some extra "If you do a runner we will charge you for a weeks worth of billings"

I'll get the contract reviewed but I can;t see anything that is different from what i had as a standard contract. It just appears that the contract is now with the agency rather than the end client.

Repeat after me. The contract does NOT make you outside IR35. It's all about working conditions and arrangements. You will become (already are?) a disguised employee, hence you're inside, as Malvolio said.

[Underscore2]

Mal

Contract hasn;t changed - apart from some extra "If you do a runner we will charge you for a weeks worth of billings"

I'll get the contract reviewed but I can;t see anything that is different from what i had as a standard contract. It just appears that the contract is now with the agency rather than the end client.

[malvolio]

It's all balls anyway, the banks' HR wonks are misinterpeting the law as it stands (although the ongoing Dacas appeal might change that slightly, it won't affect the key points). You cannot be an employee and if you are, it will be an employee of your Ltd Co or the agency or the umbrella, not the end client. There is no way you can claim employement rights from the end client, unless you are contracted directly.

All that's happening is you are being made to accept a contract of employment without any employment benefits. If they insist on taking you down this route, you will of course be demanding sick pay, paid leave, bank holidays, pension rights termination and redundancy rights and access to company facilities like canteens and gyms, won't you.

As for IR35, you're inside. End of discussion.

So the only answer is not to take on such contracts and tell them why. There's plenty of other work out there.

[DaveB]

As you may now some of the major banks have a 2 year rule for contractors (ie 2yrs and your out). Agencies are now gettgin round this by providing contractors under a managed service agreement. In effect the bank doesn't care as you are actually working for the agency.

Qn is who will this sit with IR35 status? In my mind nothing changes and I still have all the substitution etc.... thoughts?

At a guess it's all down to the contract between the agency and the client. If the agancy are simply subbing the contract to your company then it should be ok. If they are presenting you as an employee of the agency then your in trouble.

Of course Hector wont care either way and will try and shaft you regardless.

[Underscore2]

As you may now some of the major banks have a 2 year rule for contractors (ie 2yrs and your out). Agencies are now gettgin round this by providing contractors under a managed service agreement. In effect the bank doesn't care as you are actually working for the agency.

Qn is who will this sit with IR35 status? In my mind nothing changes and I still have all the substitution etc.... thoughts?