Is this a load of balls?

[SueEllen]

Pretty sure my contract expressly states that the intention is not to create an employer/employee relationship.

I'm pretty sure I'd fail if I were to try and get employment rights at a court.

I think all my contracts have stated words similar to that but it really depends which rights you (or your family)* where trying to claim.

Neither the client or you can override certain health and safety, and discrimination legal duties regardless of how the client words the contract or what you agree to.

Certain laws are specifically written so there is no escape clause on how you engage someone or how they provide services for you in the UK if you are a company. (Do a search on here for discrimination and pregnancy for an example.)

*If unfortunately the worst happened then it would be your family claiming under those laws.

[Moscow Mule]

Pretty sure my contract expressly states that the intention is not to create an employer/employee relationship.

I'm pretty sure I'd fail if I were to try and get employment rights at a court.

[ASB]

An ex contractor could take the company to company to an EAT. They would have to prove they were an actual employee - extremely unlikely but not impossible.

Look up:

O'Murphy v HP (he lost - wasn't an employee)
Muscat v C & W (he won - but this had some very unusual circumstances).

The definition of worker within the employment regulations is predictably different than that used in taxation.

The bottom line is an engager could cause someone to become their employee for purposes of employment protection, or taxation, or discrimination. It is very unlikely, but not impossible.

[Sally BFCA]

He claims that managers at clientco are warned not to do things like pay for lunch/dinner for contractors, as they are told that contractors "can then cry unfair dismissal if they're binned, and can claim they were treated as an employee" (that's a direct quote).


Riiight.

I can't imagine any contractor wanting to claim for 'dismissal' and assuming employee status, not good for their IR35 status

[MaryPoppins]

There was an article somewhere recently about how a contractor who is inside IR35 is still not entitled to claim unfair dismissal or other employment rights, so highly unlikely that a contractor outside IR35 could do so!

Ha, excellent! I think I might show him that.

[Clare@InTouch]

There was an article somewhere recently about how a contractor who is inside IR35 is still not entitled to claim unfair dismissal or other employment rights, so highly unlikely that a contractor outside IR35 could do so! <snip>

[cojak]

I wasn't disagreeing - let him keep his argument. I buy my own stationery after all (mainly because most stationery cupboards are rubbish, admittedly...)

In fact it might be worthwhile to encourage this viewpoint! Wouldn't want to be seen as employees with rights, eh folks?!

[thunderlizard]

It is mainly balls but it's a step in the right direction. As well as buying contractors lunch, gradually drop in other things like inviting them on team building, dictating their hours, and making them use the client's documentation templates instead of their own.

[mall]

Keep the receipt

Tell the permie that it also works against them as well. If the company spends too much on an employee it could be seen as bik and they would pay tax on it. This can crop up at work partys etc.

I cannot remember the limit, but it is not much.

Not that a company would spend money on it's employees in this financial climate

[stillooking]

in the eyes of HMRC, Mary Poppins will probably be an "employee" but without any rights.

[SueEllen]

Is he confusing contractors with temps???

Even if he is there is more to it then just buying someone a meal as a one off.

[cojak]

Is he confusing contractors with temps???

[MaryPoppins]

Have had a heated debate with a (permie) colleague on this baffling (non) topic.

He claims that managers at clientco are warned not to do things like pay for lunch/dinner for contractors, as they are told that contractors "can then cry unfair dismissal if they're binned, and can claim they were treated as an employee" (that's a direct quote).

I laughed and said that sounds extremely unlikely, and largely amusing, but he is adamant.

He is annoying me - logic doesn't appear to feature in his argument, which is mainly based around "I'm right, Mary. If boss buys you dinner on a work night out, you can make it harder for him to get rid of you. You probably just don't know about this, that's all."

Riiight.