Reply to: Should company pay?

[WTFH]

Are you still billing for a second contract in the background at the same time?

Edit: https://forums.contractoruk.com/busi...ce-please.html No, not this one where they took 2 weeks off sick at the end of a contract and may or may not have got paid, they never told us, but a different one

Edit 2: This is the one I was thinking of… https://forums.contractoruk.com/busi...ld-you-do.html

[SussexSeagull]

That's because they don't understand what they do and what services they offer and don't understand their contract. They are a T&M contractor which is step one, they then get paid that X per day for the work they are to do as per the contract which is step two. You could argue an understanding that a contract can continue without work being done and that the notice period is on the expiry of the contract not the work but 1 and 2 should cover that. Understand all that and no one should think they are due unworked notice. It's pure permatractor thinking. If you don't like it negotiate a clause to honour notice in or negotiate a fixed price contract. Neither of which will happen though.

You might be able to see their line of thinkig but it's wholly wrong.

I didn't say I agreed with it but you see plenty of examples of people who think that way and some examples of people getting paid for a notice period.

[jmo21]

I worked with a contractor once who got sacked and was to leave that day.

The client informed him he would be paid 2 weeks notice. He had a typical contract (just like mine).

you won't definitely get it but it can happen.

[hobnob]

The OP didn't say whether this contract is inside or outside. If it's inside, they might be able to get minimum wage from the umbrella company during the notice period (independent of the agency). However, as other people said, it's worth reading the contract carefully to be sure.

[northernladuk]

If there is, for example, a two week notice period in the contract and you are ready and able to fulfil it then I do see why some think they should be paid. Not sure I agree with them but I see the line of thinking. As I said the agent simply needs to add that there is no work for them for the next two weeks and there haven't got an argument anymore.

That's because they don't understand what they do and what services they offer and don't understand their contract. They are a T&M contractor which is step one, they then get paid that X per day for the work they are to do as per the contract which is step two. You could argue an understanding that a contract can continue without work being done and that the notice period is on the expiry of the contract not the work but 1 and 2 should cover that. Understand all that and no one should think they are due unworked notice. It's pure permatractor thinking. If you don't like it negotiate a clause to honour notice in or negotiate a fixed price contract. Neither of which will happen though.

You might be able to see their line of thinkig but it's wholly wrong.

Yep on the last bit. If agents and clients understood their contracts better and carried out the correct processes it would be much clearer and contractors wouldn't have to think for themselves or understand their contract but it is what it is. 'Dear contractor, notice is being invoked on the contract which will now expire on X date. The client does not require you to do any further work as per contract clause X. Thank you very much'.

[SussexSeagull]

Not sure if it's you or me misunderstanding the OP, but they said they're signed off for 2 weeks (from now) and the contract finishes at the end of Feb. So I assume that leaves approx 2 weeks when they'll be available for work to see out the contract, and this is what they're asking about.

Re-reading that you might be correct but not sure how he could claim for the first two weeks as he would be unable to work them. As for the nest two I refer you back to the answers given whenever anyone asks this question.

[SussexSeagull]

I don't personally. It's in the contract in black and white. No argument for anything if its a work a day for a days pay contract.

Contractors are quite happy to not work bank holidays and over the xmas period but it's exactly the same principle. Client has withdrawn work and ask the contractor not to come in. Because permtractors associate these days with holidays they don't complain. Work ends, notice period invoked but not worked so contractor is not asked in. Exactly the same principle. People don't go off on one and try and charge the client for work not done during xmas break so why during unworked notice period?

If there is, for example, a two week notice period in the contract and you are ready and able to fulfil it then I do see why some think they should be paid. Not sure I agree with them but I see the line of thinking. As I said the agent simply needs to add that there is no work for them for the next two weeks and there haven't got an argument anymore.

[northernladuk]

I see the argument for a contractor pushing to get paid for their notice period if they were in a position to work during the notice period but in this example they are in no fit state to do it.

Of course all this could be avoided if the agent said there was no work available for the duration of the notice period at the same time as serving notice.

I don't personally. It's in the contract in black and white. No argument for anything if its a work a day for a days pay contract.

Contractors are quite happy to not work bank holidays and over the xmas period but it's exactly the same principle. Client has withdrawn work and ask the contractor not to come in. Because permtractors associate these days with holidays they don't complain. Work ends, notice period invoked but not worked so contractor is not asked in. Exactly the same principle. People don't go off on one and try and charge the client for work not done during xmas break so why during unworked notice period?

[Snooky]

I see the argument for a contractor pushing to get paid for their notice period if they were in a position to work during the notice period but in this example they are in no fit state to do it.

Not sure if it's you or me misunderstanding the OP, but they said they're signed off for 2 weeks (from now) and the contract finishes at the end of Feb. So I assume that leaves approx 2 weeks when they'll be available for work to see out the contract, and this is what they're asking about.

[SussexSeagull]

I see the argument for a contractor pushing to get paid for their notice period if they were in a position to work during the notice period but in this example they are in no fit state to do it.

Of course all this could be avoided if the agent said there was no work available for the duration of the notice period at the same time as serving notice.

[Snooky]

I still find it unlikely if only because the contract will say something about conditions of payment and that will trump notice provisions.

I agree this is the most likely situation.

Time and effort is better spent getting the next gig IMHO...

That depends on how long it takes OP to read their contract and decide whether they have a leg to stand on - and, if they think they do, how much effort is needed to send an invoice or even an LBA.

I was never disputing the overwhelming likelihood that there's some contractual clause which will prevent OP having any chance of entitlement to payment for those 2 weeks. I was opposing the advice to just forget it, you'll never get anything, you're not entitled - because we just don't know that since we're not privy to the contract.

[malvolio]

Not at all, it entirely depends on the contract and its relation to UK law. Neither of us has seen the contract, so neither of us can say for certain that OP doesn't have a case. As northernladuk says above, OP should read the contract and work off that basis.

You don't seem very familiar with small claims court costs. Assuming maybe £400pd for 10 days, the court fee would be £205, with no other costs to pay, so very definitely won't cost more than you are "losing". If I felt fairly certain of my legal grounds, £205 would be a reasonable gamble to gain the £4k I felt I was owed. It might not even go as far as court, a LBA might be enough to gain payment.

OK, so ignoring the cost aspect, it is unlikely a contract will agree to pay for idle time, but if it does the OP may have a chance of getting paid. I still find it unlikely if only because the contract will say something about conditions of payment and that will trump notice provisions.

Time and effort is better spent getting the next gig IMHO...

[northernladuk]

Not really helpful advice, no work equals no pay is the right way to look at it. Going legal has two consequences; you still won't get paid and it will cost more than you are "losing".

In times gone by I would have said something similar but evidence has proven this isn't the best advice anymore. We've had at least two recent threads where someone wanted paying for work they didn't do, no work no pay is in the contract but they invoiced anyway, went toe to toe with the agent and got their money against all odds. So it happens and snookys advice is an option. We know it's wrong as it's there in the contract. Well we don't know it but I'll almost gaurantee it is. Anything that covers the agency's ass will be in for sure.

So the full situation for the OP after they've bothered reading their contract and actually attempted to understand their situation is...

If it says you are paid upon reciept of a signed timesheet then the client/agent is under no obligations to pay notice period. No work no pay.
BUT Agents/clients also bizarely don't understand their own contracts so nothing lost in sticking the invoice in and taking the agent to task. If done properly, the agent will sit up and think when a final letter before action appears. If they've worked out the contractor knows what they are doing they 'may' fold. They may not and then you've got to take legal action, which Mal rightly points out should fail becuase it's in the contract.

I'd say invoice and then threaten with legal action (properly) to see what happens as it does sometimes work. I very much doubt it's worth going to court because it's in the contract.

[Snooky]

Not really helpful advice, no work equals no pay is the right way to look at it. Going legal has two consequences; you still won't get paid and it will cost more than you are "losing".

Not at all, it entirely depends on the contract and its relation to UK law. Neither of us has seen the contract, so neither of us can say for certain that OP doesn't have a case. As northernladuk says above, OP should read the contract and work off that basis.

You don't seem very familiar with small claims court costs. Assuming maybe £400pd for 10 days, the court fee would be £205, with no other costs to pay, so very definitely won't cost more than you are "losing". If I felt fairly certain of my legal grounds, £205 would be a reasonable gamble to gain the £4k I felt I was owed. It might not even go as far as court, a LBA might be enough to gain payment.

[malvolio]

What does your contract say? That's all that really matters. These days there'll usually be several get-out clauses where the client can just choose to stop offering work and money; if you have something like that, as others have suggested, you're on a hiding to nothing and should probably just accept it. If there isn't any such clause, I'd send written confirmation to the company saying that you're making yourself available for work until the agreed contract end date and if they choose not to offer any work and not pay, I'd probably start a legal process.

It all depends on your contract and how willing you are to chase them for the missing money if you think it's due.

Not really helpful advice, no work equals no pay is the right way to look at it. Going legal has two consequences; you still won't get paid and it will cost more than you are "losing".