Reply to: Termination

[Old Greg]

Excuse me if I can't be arsed to read the whole thread.

I have always seen the contract as the wrapper in which work can be done and should be paid for if done. If a contract is terminated early, then no work can be done once the contract is finished. That's the simple bit.

But, IMO, the contract is no more a framework under which work can be done. There are various reasons why work might not be done, and if one of these reasons arises, then no payment is due. These reasons include:

- Contractor not available
- No work needs doing
- The supplier decides to engage another contractor.

This is about T&M contracts - maybe a fixed price contract is different.

Of course, my assumptions may be incorrect in which case it would be great if someone could win a court case on this.

[malvolio]

I'm still waiting for you to answer the original question

Here it is again, quite nicely rephrased by Contreras:

Ask Lawspeed, they wrote them. And they can be modified to something mutually agreeable. But it doesn't affect my original point; if there's no work, you don't get paid. If you accept work that's not specified in your original (or an amended) contract just to fill in time, then that's an IR35 fail.

[northernladuk]

I'm still waiting for you to answer the original question

Here it is again, quite nicely rephrased by Contreras:

You could argue the same for most RoS as well to be fair but that is another arguable one.

The fact there is a notice period but no other detail about it throws it open to debate, one that only the lawers can argue. Most other contracts you come across detail it so it is much clearer. Maybe something PCG could either clarify or modify..

[Wanderer]

Hand up all those who can't differentiate between the following two statements:

1. We aim to tell you four weeks in advance that we will be terminating your current engagement.
2. There is no more paid work for you to do so please go home

I'm still waiting for you to answer the original question

Here it is again, quite nicely rephrased by Contreras:

Why do all the PCG/qdos contract templates specify a notice period if it's meaningless?

[northernladuk]

If a contractor is useless you get rid of them asap by removing work and using MOO, if you want to get rid of a contractor but potentially want to use them again you serve notice keeping everything polite.

This isn't MoO... MoO is about offering work beyond the end of the current contract. Incognito put up some good posts about this point.

[SueEllen]

If a contractor is useless you get rid of them asap by removing work and using MOO, if you want to get rid of a contractor but potentially want to use them again you serve notice keeping everything polite.

MOO doesn't come into play here and neither does a notice clause simply because most contracts have competency clauses.

So if a contractor is proved to be incompetent the client can remove them immediately, and if they are stupid enough to opt-out you can refuse to pay them.

It's in the client's best interests to make sure this incompetence is clearly written down so if the contractor mentions court they can provide evidence.

[AtW]

1. We aim to tell you four weeks in advance that we will be terminating your current engagement.

And how notice period is phrased for the contractor - same kind of "aim to tell" but can quit any time on the client???

[malvolio]

Hands up who can't differentiate between:

1. We aim to tell you four weeks in advance that we will be terminating your current engagement.

2. The agency will give the supplier 4 weeks notice of termination.

Sorry, but that's so stupid as to deserve a "Aim to tell you" - if a contract said that you'd know that it meant nothing.

So you don't understand the point then...

[VectraMan]

OK, getting bored now...

Hand up all those who can't differentiate between the following two statements:

1. We aim to tell you four weeks in advance that we will be terminating your current engagement.

2. There is no more paid work for you to do so please go home

If you can't then please stop arguing until you can.

Hands up who can't differentiate between:

1. We aim to tell you four weeks in advance that we will be terminating your current engagement.

2. The agency will give the supplier 4 weeks notice of termination.

Sorry, but that's so stupid as to deserve a "Aim to tell you" - if a contract said that you'd know that it meant nothing.

[malvolio]

OK, getting bored now...

Hand up all those who can't differentiate between the following two statements:

1. We aim to tell you four weeks in advance that we will be terminating your current engagement.

2. There is no more paid work for you to do so please go home

If you can't then please stop arguing until you can.

[SimonMac]

TL;DR

But basically, yes there are certain posters on here who's parents really should have considered a termination instead.

[VectraMan]

they chuck in pseudo-employment conditions such as notice periods to make the contract look more appealing to the average contractor.

So it's a deliberate attempt to mislead? Surely a judge would take a dim view of that and side with the contractor.

And if there's two contradictory clauses without it being clear that one takes priority over the other, a judge would side with the party that didn't draft the contract.

But IANAL.

If it's in any way an IR35 issue, then any IR35 contract review would have the notice periods removed.

[eek]

Let's rephrase the question. Why do all the PCG/qdos contract templates specify a notice period if it's meaningless?

To "make the contract look more appealing to the average contractor"? - unlikely.

Actually they are not meaningless. Many companies will give and pay for notice because they believe it is the done thing (heck the company with the worst working conditions possibly gave me 4 weeks notice - it meant when they phoned up 3 months later with an issue I helped them fix it). It gives company a polite friendly way of removing resources in a controlled manner.

If a contractor is useless you get rid of them asap by removing work and using MOO, if you want to get rid of a contractor but potentially want to use them again you serve notice keeping everything polite.

[Contreras]

All the people who say the contractual notice period "means nothing because there is no MOO" cannot provide a reasonable explanation to the question why does the contract specify a notice period if it's meaningless?

Because contracts are written by agencies who have sold you to the client as one of their resources and therefore have client/agency contracts that reflect a permie employment model. That causes other problems so they then add other clauses to make them look like they are outside IR35. However, being fundemantally stupid and only interested in the bottom line, rather than the actual arrangements, and since the contracts are derafted by lawuers versed in Human Remains law, they chuck in pseudo-employment conditions such as notice periods to make the contract look more appealing to the average contractor.

If you know the reality, notice periods are meaningless. Hence my previous comment. Other clauses will engate the notice period, most notably the one that says no work = no money.

Let's rephrase the question. Why do all the PCG/qdos contract templates specify a notice period if it's meaningless?

To "make the contract look more appealing to the average contractor"? - unlikely.

[SueEllen]

Because contracts are written by agencies who have sold you to the client as one of their resources and therefore have client/agency contracts that reflect a permie employment model. That causes other problems so they then add other clauses to make them look like they are outside IR35. However, being fundemantally stupid and only interested in the bottom line, rather than the actual arrangements, and since the contracts are derafted by lawuers versed in Human Remains law, they chuck in pseudo-employment conditions such as notice periods to make the contract look more appealing to the average contractor.

If you know the reality, notice periods are meaningless. Hence my previous comment. Other clauses will engate the notice period, most notably the one that says no work = no money.

You are presuming:
1. People don't go direct and have notice periods in put in their contracts by the client,
2. Clients don't insist certain terms including notice periods must be in the agency's contract with the contractor

Lots of contracts both agencies and direct clients use are from a standard template. Some agencies then add extra terms to these templates which if you get your solicitor to review they rip apart.