AWR clauses in contract

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

We'll have to agree to disagree Mal but, just for balance, the guidance from the people who actually published the legislation is here http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore...s-guidance.pdf

[malvolio]

Yes the clauses are meaningless unless the contractor is working through an intermediary; the wording in the AWR is quite clear in respect of PSC contractors, the PCG just don't like it

The PCG's Guide to the AWR is at Agency Workers Regulations | PCG. In brief, the AWR does not apply to those who are genuinely in business (cf Dim Prawn on IR35 of course...). PCG are clearly of the opinion that since most freelance contractors are in business, then they are out of scope. It all comes back to how you define "in business" which, as we all know, is akin to tracking down the Higgs Boson; even if you find evidence of it, nobody is actually sure it's proven.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I won't labour the point but the logic is the other way round. If you are caught by IR35 and therefore the AWR applies (which is not what I'm told by the PCG team, but we'll leave that aside) then these clauses are still meaningless since it is not you that has any control over the applicability of AWR.

Yes the clauses are meaningless unless the contractor is working through an intermediary; the wording in the AWR is quite clear in respect of PSC contractors, the PCG just don't like it

[malvolio]

Not true at all. The Agency Workers Regulations do apply to Ltd Co contractors whose working practises would put them inside IR35

I won't labour the point but the logic is the other way round. If you are caught by IR35 and therefore the AWR applies (which is not what I'm told by the PCG team, but we'll leave that aside) then these clauses are still meaningless since it is not you that has any control over the applicability of AWR.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

You're not an agency worker, you are (in effect) an independent supplier. It's also meaningless in that you can't opt out of the AWR provisions since they do no apply to you but to your client (arguably, in this case, the agency). So why sign a contract that mis-states your position?

AWR is not actually intended to apply to limited company contractors. Ask that these clauses be removed as being immaterial.

Not true at all. The Agency Workers Regulations do apply to Ltd Co contractors whose working practises would put them inside IR35

[malvolio]

I've got a similar contract here too.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of working with a contract like this?

Thanks
GE

You're not an agency worker, you are (in effect) an independent supplier. It's also meaningless in that you can't opt out of the AWR provisions since they do no apply to you but to your client (arguably, in this case, the agency). So why sign a contract that mis-states your position?

AWR is not actually intended to apply to limited company contractors. Ask that these clauses be removed as being immaterial.

[The Agents View]

That looks like a Capita contract?

Most agencies are now acknowledging AWR - unfortunately, normally in the wrong way as you see above. I agree with above posters, they've either given you the wrong contract, or they really don't understand that AWR is for low level temps.

[garethevans1986]

I've got a similar contract here too.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of working with a contract like this?

Thanks
GE

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

They may not have given you the wrong contract if they consider that your working practises would put you inside IR35

[northernladuk]

intended to meet the requirements of Regulation 10 of the AWR Legislation.[/INDENT]

I was surprised to see this as I didn't think that AWR would be applicable as a director of a limited company providing the services.Has anyone else seen something like this and what are your views ?

Do a search on here and you will find the facts, you don't need our views.

Tips for searching here : http://forums.contractoruk.com/welco...uk-forums.html

[malvolio]

They've given you the wrong contract.

HTH

[zoomfwd]

I have just been offered an extension at current clientco but the contract has the following clauses in it -

3.4 The Supplier acknowledges that the Personnel is an agency worker as defined under the AWR Legislation and
accordingly the Supplier will comply with the AWR Legislation in all relevant respects. In particular the Supplier
undertakes:
3.4.1 as soon as possible prior to the commencement of an Assignment to inform <agency> of any occasions in
which the Personnel has worked in the same or similar role with the Client via any third party which may
count towards the twelve week qualifying period under the AWR Legislation for equal treatment in
respect of basic working and employment conditions. The Supplier further undertakes to provide <agency>
with any further information in this regard as <agency> may reasonably request.
3.4.2 To ensure that where the Personnel has completed the twelve week qualifying period either prior to
commencement of, or during the relevant Assignment, any different or preferential terms and conditions
relating to the duration of working time, night work, rest periods and/or rest breaks under the AWR
Legislation which the Personnel may be entitled to are notified to the Supplier and the Supplier will
ensure that the Personnel receives any such entitlements.
3.4.3 That if the Supplier or the Personnel considers that the Personnel has not, or may not have, received
equal treatment under the AWR Legislation, the Supplier may, or may request the Personnel to, raise this
in writing with <agency> setting out as fully as possible the basis of the Supplier’s and/or the Personnel’s
concerns.
3.4.4 not without the prior written consent of <agency> to supply the services of the Personnel under a contract
of employment that the Supplier purports is a permanent contract of employment providing for pay
between assignments intended to meet the requirements of Regulation 10 of the AWR Legislation.

I was surprised to see this as I didn't think that AWR would be applicable as a director of a limited company providing the services.Has anyone else seen something like this and what are your views ?