Pre-"employment" screening (one for NLUK particularly)

[blakeyuk]

Dunno much about IP but surely if you are a person create code then the agreement on that IP would be at a personal level? I agree IP could be signed at a business level but that would assume some agreement between yourself and your LTD that anything you create would be IP of the LTD which then had to be signed away to the client by your LTD. By signing as an individual your client is claiming it at source rather than going up a chain of owners? Or am I talking rubbish. Something similar to H&S being a personal responsibility not a company one?

That's a good point actually. I'm a IT BA, not a developer, so the odds of me generating anything worth protecting is negligible, and you've reminded me of other conversations I've had before considering contracting where I think you're right - it's a personal not company issue.

Cheers mate,
Andy

[northernladuk]

Thanks NLUK, I knew I might have missed something.

OK, I've double-checked all the docs, and basically all of the ones I'm concerned about say "pre-employment screening". These are standard docs that all contractors sign, but I'm not sure about the bank employees.

I'll go for your last comment.

The only doc I've got major concerns about is the one about intellectual property, confidentiality. etc (called "Personal Undertakings"). That specifically talks about me, my rights, my obligations, etc regarding IP, confidentiality, during (quote) "for the duration of the provision of my services to {the client}". It has a section to sign that asks for my signature, name, and date, but no mention anywhere in the document about my limited company, either by name nor inferred.

Andy

Dunno much about IP but surely if you are a person create code then the agreement on that IP would be at a personal level? I agree IP could be signed at a business level but that would assume some agreement between yourself and your LTD that anything you create would be IP of the LTD which then had to be signed away to the client by your LTD. By signing as an individual your client is claiming it at source rather than going up a chain of owners? Or am I talking rubbish. Something similar to H&S being a personal responsibility not a company one?

[blakeyuk]

They asking for a CRB check as well?

Yes.

[blakeyuk]

Thanks!

Thanks NLUK, I knew I might have missed something.

OK, I've double-checked all the docs, and basically all of the ones I'm concerned about say "pre-employment screening". These are standard docs that all contractors sign, but I'm not sure about the bank employees.

I'll go for your last comment.

The only doc I've got major concerns about is the one about intellectual property, confidentiality. etc (called "Personal Undertakings"). That specifically talks about me, my rights, my obligations, etc regarding IP, confidentiality, during (quote) "for the duration of the provision of my services to {the client}". It has a section to sign that asks for my signature, name, and date, but no mention anywhere in the document about my limited company, either by name nor inferred.

Andy

[Troll]

They asking for a CRB check as well?

[northernladuk]

You could always make comment on the bottom of the form that you are not employee of the client and you are signing the form as an employee of your LTD so you have made the distinction clear?

[northernladuk]

Hi all,

I'm about to start my first contract with one of the big banks. They outsource their contractor engagement via a third party, who have sent me about 2.5 million forms to fill in.

The contract looks OK in terms of IR35, but I'm getting it reviewed.

My question is around the words "employment" in some of the screening docs. For example:

The key screening doc is from the client, called "Pre-employment screening form", and goes on to say that screening is important and "your recruitment vendor will be acting on behalf of {the client}, for the pre-employment screening process. {snip} If you receive a verbal offer of appointment, you will be asked to complete a Pre-Employment Screening Form." It then goes into your employment history including evidence required for any gaps (which seems to be standard for the banks from what I'd already read on the forum).

There are a handful of similar phrases dotted around the other docs.


So... in the interests of IR35 I was going to dingy them and ask them to change the wording to "pre-engagement" or similar, based on NLUK's stance in this thread:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...on-form-2.html

NLUK: "The clue is in the title... Pre-Employment - Pre-Engagement Screening... They are not the same thing."

But I'd thought I'd use the search function (shock! horror! A newbie using the search!) and found this:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...18-months.html

Where NLUK says "I think you are getting too tied up in the wording. So they don't have a contractor worded version. Big deal."

And now I'm confused. My font-of-all-knowledge seems to be saying two different things, or in my discipleship of all things NLUKish, I've missed something somewhere.

I therefore abase myself and ask: Any thoughts from anyone?

Regards,
Andy

You have to take the context of the thread in to account. This was a discussion about the OP filling in an 'Application form for Employment' form and discussion went on from there. That particular document was a no no as the title is very scary and not what you want in your IR35 evidence folder.

In the second thread the email the user got does have the caveat at the bottom saying 'If self-employed, you will need to provide contact details of up to 2
business referees for each relevant period' so takes in to account the contractor status.

Looking at the context of both mails then yes advice is slightly different. (Phew, thought I fecked up there)

Take each form on it's own merits, see if it does have comments about 'If self employed' or 'If not an employee of the <client>' then you are ok. Also take a call on which are standard docs that all parties have to go through regardless of employment situation. If, say, the H&S one for example has the term employee on it but is generic and anyone on site has to sign it then it cannot be argued it points to you being an employee if that makes sense.

Filling in an 'Application for Employment' is clearly wrong and could indicate you are infact an employee
Filling in a site data policy for that applies to all on site, contractors and permies alike will not be a problem even if it mentions 'employee' on it. Can be argued either way and doesn't indicate you are an employee...

Make sense?

[blakeyuk]

Hi all,

I'm about to start my first contract with one of the big banks. They outsource their contractor engagement via a third party, who have sent me about 2.5 million forms to fill in.

The contract looks OK in terms of IR35, but I'm getting it reviewed.

My question is around the words "employment" in some of the screening docs. For example:

The key screening doc is from the client, called "Pre-employment screening form", and goes on to say that screening is important and "your recruitment vendor will be acting on behalf of {the client}, for the pre-employment screening process. {snip} If you receive a verbal offer of appointment, you will be asked to complete a Pre-Employment Screening Form." It then goes into your employment history including evidence required for any gaps (which seems to be standard for the banks from what I'd already read on the forum).

There are a handful of similar phrases dotted around the other docs.


So... in the interests of IR35 I was going to dingy them and ask them to change the wording to "pre-engagement" or similar, based on NLUK's stance in this thread:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...on-form-2.html

NLUK: "The clue is in the title... Pre-Employment - Pre-Engagement Screening... They are not the same thing."

But I'd thought I'd use the search function (shock! horror! A newbie using the search!) and found this:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...18-months.html

Where NLUK says "I think you are getting too tied up in the wording. So they don't have a contractor worded version. Big deal."

And now I'm confused. My font-of-all-knowledge seems to be saying two different things, or in my discipleship of all things NLUKish, I've missed something somewhere.

I therefore abase myself and ask: Any thoughts from anyone?

Regards,
Andy