Parasol - Employment Costs - extra charges??

[Wary]

Well, I've had an ongoing (written) conversation with Parasol over the last few weeks regarding this where they have, not surprisingly, now agreed with me that they have taken these over-deductions to cover their implementation of AWR. In my case this adds up to a hefty 4 figure amount.

Having reviewed Being paid and payslips : Directgov - Employment I have instructed Parasol to immediately refund all over-deductions incurred by myself.

If this refund is not forthcoming I will be initiating an employment tribunal process against them.

So much for Steve's comments about it being "pence not pounds"!!!

How long will you give them before initiating an employment tribunal action against them?

I should imagine that they'd settle rather than risk this as it would likely go against them. Steve's own comments show that the level of deductions are well above their true AWR overheads, and that link you posted shows that their payslips are unlawful. In particular, it says that the payslip MUST contain "individual amount of any variable deductions (for example tax)". Clearly they're falling foul of this by lumping these additional deductions in with Employers NI and using a generic description to cover the two.

[Wary]

Under this new Swedish model AWR 'thing' an Umbrella has to pay 50% of the salary for 4 weeks to an employee who finds themselves out of contract.

Is that correct? I thought they are only obliged to pay national minimum wage to cover this period?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Is that correct? I thought they are only obliged to pay national minimum wage to cover this period?

It all depends how the salary arrangements with the umbrella company are structured - the legislation states 50% or at least minimum wage

[Wary]

It all depends how the salary arrangements with the umbrella company are structured - the legislation states 50% or at least minimum wage

Interesting. Parasol's response to Spartan states "Clause 3.1 confirms that whilst on assignment, you will be entitled to be paid basic pay for the hours that you work. For clarity, basic pay is a sum per hour at the rate of National Minimum Wage in force from time to time and not including any advance payment of PBA or Commission."

Hence I should imagine that the best you'd get from Parasol would be National Minimum Wage, because of the clever way that they've set up the pay arrangements, although I'd guess they're not atypical compared to most other umbrellas from this perspective.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Interesting. Parasol's response to Spartan states "Clause 3.1 confirms that whilst on assignment, you will be entitled to be paid basic pay for the hours that you work. For clarity, basic pay is a sum per hour at the rate of National Minimum Wage in force from time to time and not including any advance payment of PBA or Commission."

Hence I should imagine that the best you'd get from Parasol would be National Minimum Wage, because of the clever way that they've set up the pay arrangements, although I'd guess they're not atypical compared to most other umbrellas from this perspective.

The contractual arrangements that you describe are typical for umbrella companies

[Waldorf]

Interesting. Parasol's response to Spartan states "Clause 3.1 confirms that whilst on assignment, you will be entitled to be paid basic pay for the hours that you work. For clarity, basic pay is a sum per hour at the rate of National Minimum Wage in force from time to time and not including any advance payment of PBA or Commission."

Hence I should imagine that the best you'd get from Parasol would be National Minimum Wage, because of the clever way that they've set up the pay arrangements, although I'd guess they're not atypical compared to most other umbrellas from this perspective.

I would have thought this would be worth taking to a tribunal if the umbrella only paid you at 50% of the minimum wage, if you can show that your income was higher than this.

I just cannot see how an umbrella can make this model pay without significant increase in fees from contractors. It seems some are using an insurance model on the basis that only a tiny % will actually need to be paid whilst out of contract - seems high risk to me?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I would have thought this would be worth taking to a tribunal if the umbrella only paid you at 50% of the minimum wage, if you can show that your income was higher than this.

I just cannot see how an umbrella can make this model pay without significant increase in fees from contractors. It seems some are using an insurance model on the basis that only a tiny % will actually need to be paid whilst out of contract - seems high risk to me?

It would be min wage, not 50% of min wage so perfectly lawful - the problem comes if deductions are being made from the individual

[Waldorf]

It would be min wage, not 50% of min wage so perfectly lawful - the problem comes if deductions are being made from the individual

Lisa, thanks for the correction, still min wage is still a lot less than most contractors would be earning.

If the deductions are being taken from the contractor, I take it that you agree that a claim would be possible at a tribunal? This is certainly the route I would take.

If deductions are not taken from the contractor and the umbrella funds these costs from their margin, I cannot see how this business model is viable.

Even if the out of contract pay is funded by the umbrella I would think it is worth a visit to a tribunal if this pay is a lot lower than what I was actually earning.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Lisa, thanks for the correction, still min wage is still a lot less than most contractors would be earning.

If the deductions are being taken from the contractor, I take it that you agree that a claim would be possible at a tribunal? This is certainly the route I would take.

If deductions are not taken from the contractor and the umbrella funds these costs from their margin, I cannot see how this business model is viable.

Even if the out of contract pay is funded by the umbrella I would think it is worth a visit to a tribunal if this pay is a lot lower than what I was actually earning.

If an unlawful deduction has been made from an employees salary then that is certainly cause for complaint

[Waldorf]

If an unlawful deduction has been made from an employees salary then that is certainly cause for complaint

Lisa, I think it is telling that you did not respond to my other points - even at the min wage, a 4 week break will cost the umbrella company more than a £1000 - I just cannot see how they can fund that from their fees.

Lisa, you must be relying on the basis that very few will claim, seems quite a risk.