Reply to: Contract offer withdrawn

[LondonManc]

Just skimmed through, but paid attention to the OP's comments.

No reference from PD that it's an individual or the OP's LTD CO that were engaged; that could be critical.

Question for the OP: Any idea why you were binned off? While it probably won't matter, it could be useful in establishing whether you want to take them to small claims or work for them again. If they've not given a reason, you're probably on a mysterious blacklist; unfortunately you're likely now damaged goods and forever regarded as one of PD's cronies, therefore get the claim in.

A small claims submission can't do much harm, especially if there's little chance that you'll work for them again.

[tomtomagain]

, the company can hardly be held responsible for a rogue employee

<mod snip>

Yes they can. Just ask the banks who took $$$M in fines due to the actions of their Libor traders.

[SueEllen]

I see where you going with this and you are could be ultimately right but embarrassing for CIO etc. Not a chance. Someone screwed up and he's gone. Just let HR and legal sort it. 11 days of a contractor isn't worth their time.

They will pay out then rewrite their staff handbook/contracts to make it clear that if you don't have authority for something e.g. hiring personnel then you could end up personally liable for it. More intelligent workers will then make sure they have the appropriate authorisation to do things.

Unfortunately that means they will refuse to sign things off due to fear - I had a client like that who refused to sign of milestones/deliverables in projects due to that.

[clearedforlanding]

I see where you going with this and you are could be ultimately right but embarrassing for CIO etc. Not a chance. Someone screwed up and he's gone. Just let HR and legal sort it. 11 days of a contractor isn't worth their time.

Fair enough forgot where I was. My assumption was (it is this way in many mainland European companies) a Programme Director as opposed to Project Manager would be n-2 & report to n-1. Sure you can fire an n-2 to take the heat, but this would come up in a n/n-1 meeting.

Director is a official title, role & function with legal implications in my territory.

[northernladuk]

The legal side of things has been debated to death. My thoughts are:

If one of my PMs or PDs had overstepped his authority and someone who had been on site for 11 days pursued an invoice, I would strongly consider triggering payment in SAP, because it would be a bad ******* reflection on me and my peers that this had been allowed to happen.

Internally some seriously embarrassing questions for CIO, CSO & HR Director. It's a headache that no-one wants on their desk and a favour to be cashed in later by the guy who buries it.

I would suggest OP just goes through the motions of PAP of the SCC and not underestimate how senior people at ClientCo would want this to go away.

I see where you going with this and you are could be ultimately right but embarrassing for CIO etc. Not a chance. Someone screwed up and he's gone. Just let HR and legal sort it. 11 days of a contractor isn't worth their time.

[clearedforlanding]

The legal side of things has been debated to death. My thoughts are:

If one of my PMs or PDs had overstepped his authority and someone who had been on site for 11 days pursued an invoice, I would strongly consider triggering payment in SAP, because it would be a bad ******* reflection on me and my peers that this had been allowed to happen.

Internally some seriously embarrassing questions for CIO, CSO & HR Director. It's a headache that no-one wants on their desk and a favour to be cashed in later by the guy who buries it.

I would suggest OP just goes through the motions of PAP of the SCC and not underestimate how senior people at ClientCo would want this to go away.

[SueEllen]

Being allowed on site proves squat. If the PD had contacted security and said to issue a pass as everything is in train to take the new hire on, they'd likely accept that. They may even have eventually contacted HR to say where's such and such documentation for the PD's new hire.

So you think you can turn up in a random office building day after day, say you know Fred Bloggs and you are there to work, and be let in? Of course you won't.

I dont think the OP has a leg to stand on with either the agent or the client but time will tell I suppose.

Maybe you should read all the OP posts before making comments about agents....

[Boo]

Utter bollocks. If the PD who was sacked for their role in this episode, didnt adhere to the client's recruitment policy of contractors or wasnt authorised to hire (which is usually HR's remit), the company can hardly be held responsible for a rogue employee and an 'engagement' that wasnt authorised or completed within their policy.

Not true. If an employee of a company signs a contract, and if the contracting party accepts it in good faith then the contract is binding on the company irrespective of their internal authority. How on earth do you think could contract law operate between companies if all a firm had to do to escape its obligations was to repudiate the authority of the signitory?

Do you practice being an idoit or does it come natural to you?

Unnecessary and abusive. Reported.

Boo

[currybelly]

Thanks all, there are some really good points made here!! I'm away in Germany for the weekend so won't be responding, but appreciate the input and will certainly let you know the outcome.

Just to fill in a couple of gaps:

I was not the reason the PD was marched, but my situation probably gave the client the ammo.

I was signed in and out of reception daily and therefore have a record of the hours I was on site. I can also tell you these were considerably longer hours than any of the permies or other contractors on the project and have physical evidence of the outputs I produced in the short time I was there. I have absolutely no qualms that I failed to provide value to the client, I have a very strong work ethic!!

Certainly a chastening lesson but not a situation I could have envisaged given the previous working relationship.

Anyway enjoy your weekend all.

Regards,

CB

[northernladuk]

There's a few too many 'knowingly's here when you dont know.

The fact the PD got sacked should tell you something ie that he acted outside his remit. As for the reason why the pd got sacked, Id lay odds it was for his action in this episode rather than nicking laptops.



Being allowed on site proves squat. If the PD had contacted security and said to issue a pass as everything is in train to take the new hire on, they'd likely accept that. They may even have eventually contacted HR to say where's such and such documentation for the PD's new hire.

I dont think the OP has a leg to stand on with either the agent or the client but time will tell I suppose.

I'd go with all of this. My client manager and Deputy Director can give access to site. It has nothing to do with the legal/HR aspect. That maybe an assumption they need to fix bit that's then process.

That said going right back to what SE says their appetite not to fight may play in to the OPs favour.

[SussexSeagull]

One of their then employees made a commitment in writing (well e-mail). If one of their employees had nicked data and sold it on they would be responsible for that. If they broke trading laws they would be fined.

Take them to court but don't go on site without a contract again.

[BolshieBastard]

True enough, however if ClientCo accepted OP on site knowingly and accepted his services knowingly they can....
To play devil's advocate we don't know why the PD was sacked - for all we know he was nicking laptops and selling them on eBay. I have seen this happen.

-EDIT- The aftermath - I didn't actually watch the crime being committed. That would be naughty. -EDIT-

There's a few too many 'knowingly's here when you dont know.

The fact the PD got sacked should tell you something ie that he acted outside his remit. As for the reason why the pd got sacked, Id lay odds it was for his action in this episode rather than nicking laptops.

The OP was allowed on-site.

There is normally more than one person involved in site security.

Being allowed on site proves squat. If the PD had contacted security and said to issue a pass as everything is in train to take the new hire on, they'd likely accept that. They may even have eventually contacted HR to say where's such and such documentation for the PD's new hire.

I dont think the OP has a leg to stand on with either the agent or the client but time will tell I suppose.

[Mincepie]

Whack an invoice in and threaten small claims court. Once that,s done enjoy Christmas and early next year hassle them and if no movement start the SCC process

You have hardly anything to lose and everything to gain

[SlipTheJab]

One thing I've not seen mentioned yet is what evidence the OP has that he worked for 11 days? Does he have timesheets signed by an approved person? Even if the client does admit he was engaged legitimately, they could dispute how much work was done and therefore what money is owed?

I also tend to side with the OP on this for reasons already stated by some other posters: it's reasonable to assume someone with a 'director' title has authority to bind the company to agreements; the fact he'd been there before seems a reasonable argument towards accepting the work on short notice (in fact I'd like to think any reasonable judge would see that he was trying to be accommodating to the client rather than naive in his actions); plus the fact he was allowed on site for 11 days to do the work.

I also disagree that 11 days isn't worth fighting for - as the OP has already clarified, this amounts to a decent chunk of money so why should he just walk away?

+1 He should get paid, end of.

[ASB]

There are some words on apparent authority here. Even if the person who agreed was not authorised it may still be binding.

Agents acting without authority: when is the principal bound? | The In-House Lawyer
Unauthorised employee signed suply contract on behalf of company | The Law Forum