can they do this?

[tim123]

The explanation is that they dont want contracters to be enititled to any rights they get after 1 years continous employment. It is nothing to do with my agency all coming from the company.

They are a load of numpties for believing that this makes a difference.

1) The idea that you might get employment rights after a year is probably false.
2) If you should per-chance get said employment rights after a year, this trick of taking a weeks break is going to make f-all difference. If the matter did come to court the judge is going to ignore it and join the two periods of employment together, just like he would if you took a weeks annual holiday.

I can howwever believe that you are working for a bunch of numpties who really do think that this is going to work, and if it were me (and *if* I wanted to keep the contract) I would humor them.

tim

[treefingers]

Would you believe me if i told you this was a Top 5 UK law firm

[ASB]

Treefingers,

The advice given is almost certainly correct, but it could be erroneous. There is good reason for them to be afraid of employment rights/protection issues. But only in very limited circumstances.

What you have not said is whether you are an employee of the agency involed and they are supplying you as a temporary worker (much the same way as any old temp agency). If this is the case then there has been a recent employments rights case (but buggered if I can remember which one and can't be arsed to find it because it doesn't affect me) which does grant certain potential rights to "temps" in this sort of circumstance.

If however the model is the more usual one in IT circles (i.e. you are employed by a company and that company enters into a contract with the agency) then the chances of employment issues arising are basically nil (caveat: could depend on the final outcome of Muscat but that was much more specific and involed much more unusual circumstances).

However, pragmatically you are not going to change their minds. If they can terminate your contract at a weeks notcie there is no way you can actually force them not to, but if you don't want to go down this road you could indicate that you wouldn't really feel inclined to sign a new one and see what happens.

Obviously I am reluctant to say they are wrong, after all they are the highly paid lawyers who should know rather better than me, but which ones are they? Just so I can consider ensuring they are not on my likely advisors list.

[treefingers]

thanks for all your help, I know that its just means I lose out on one weeks pay but one weeks pay is a lot to me at the moment (as anyone with a new baby will understand). It was more then fact that its very cheeky that large companies can do this.

[Lucifer Box]

Treefingers, if the contract you sign allows it, and it isn't illegal, they can do whatever they like. You need to stop thinking like a permie, you're in a b2b relationship now. Chalk this one up to experience and be sure you are happy before you sign in future.

In the meantime, see if you can negotiate the "one week's notice on a whim" clause out of your new contract. At the very least try asking for more dosh to compensate. After all, they've done it once so who's to say they won't do it again and you lose another week's pay.

Hope it all works out.

[Mordac]

>Hang on a mo, Mordy, his current contract finishes in June and the replacement finishes in June as well so he isn't losing four months, he's losing one weeks pay in the gap between the two.

That's the point surely. He has to take it on trust that the new contract will be forthcoming the following week. So in reality he is tearing up a 4 month contract on the verbal promise of a new one. And he loses a weeks money. Personally I'd try and hold them to the original contract. If they expect you to honour it, so should they. And if they're a top 5 law firm, they know you have no employment rights other than those you have with your employer, which presumably is either a brolly or your own limited.
Oh, and I'd be on Jobswerve looking for a new contract as well. Are the agency of any use in all this? At the very least they should be pointing out to the client that they are in potential breach of contract situation.

[DaveB]

How about negitiating for a weeks money in compensation for agreeing to being messed about like this?

[Lucifer Box]

>Hang on a mo, Mordy, his current contract finishes in June and the replacement finishes in June as well so he isn't losing four months, he's losing one weeks pay in the gap between the two.

That's the point surely. He has to take it on trust that the new contract will be forthcoming the following week. So in reality he is tearing up a 4 month contract on the verbal promise of a new one. And he loses a weeks money. Personally I'd try and hold them to the original contract. If they expect you to honour it, so should they. And if they're a top 5 law firm, they know you have no employment rights other than those you have with your employer, which presumably is either a brolly or your own limited.
Oh, and I'd be on Jobswerve looking for a new contract as well. Are the agency of any use in all this? At the very least they should be pointing out to the client that they are in potential breach of contract situation.

Yes, agreed. Sorry, I thought you were thinking his original contract was until four months after June. I don't think he can hold them to the contract as it has a "one week no reason needed" notice clause in it. The client is operating perfectly within their rights. But you are correct, he absolutely needs to condsider the possibility the follow up contract might fail to appear.