Resource Manager doesn't get it

[KayMan]

The client (a consultancy) I'm contracting for at the moment are incredible, they've been dealing with contractors pretty much since they started. However, this resource manager that I currently have to deal with is driving me crazy. She just doesn't get contracting and she's way too controlling - at least she tries to be.

Once a month she sends emails asking us to tell her about upcoming time off (even though the company itself doesn't require this from contractors). She gets super pissed when one of her contractors gets off sick and forgets to let her know - as if that's a mandatory thing. Every now and then she sends an email "reminding us" of working hours on site should be from 9-6 (again even though other contractors who deal with other RMs don't deal with this).

And finally this is what got me really worried. I sent her an email asking for a one to one so we can agree in writing that I am willing to provide a substitute in case I'm away. From my perspective, even if that doesn't materialize, I am still doing my part and showing an element of financial risk. She completely refused saying that the company will not accept anyone from the outside no matter what and I don't have to provide a substitute, I only need to "hand over" work after letting the team and her know in advance of any time off I am about to take. But at least I got that from her in writing.

In a nutshell, the whole thing is making me feel very uneasy, particularly as the other RMs are not like this, which means it is not a problem with the client, just with her. My agent told me that this is just her character and she likes to control things - well how does that make things any better for me. Switching RMs is not an option since these are tightly coupled with agencies, so this RM deals with my agency only. Is it worth kicking up a fuss or even potentially considering leaving?

First contract btw - maybe I'm just over exaggerating but I'm trying to take precaution that's all.

[Kess]

It's probably nothing to worry about. I keep my PM informed of any holiday plans out of professional courtesy and because, when working as part of a team, disappearing unannounced for a few days would cause them problems.

The substitute thing sounds a bit off, but I suppose at the end of the day it's what's written into the contract that counts.

[jmo21]

...but I suppose at the end of the day it's what's written into the contract that counts.

Deary me!

[jamesbrown]

It's probably nothing to worry about. I keep my PM informed of any holiday plans out of professional courtesy and because, when working as part of a team, disappearing unannounced for a few days would cause them problems.

The substitute thing sounds a bit off, but I suppose at the end of the day it's what's written into the contract that counts.

I don't agree, at least insofar is IR35 is concerned (which I assume the OP is alluding to in terms of "worry"). What matters is not the contract, primarily, but the reality of the situation. If HMRC were to talk with the PM further down the line, any substitution clause would be revealed as a sham and the elements of D&C mentioned by the OP would also be exposed. For example, there's a difference between informing the PM about plans for time-off as a matter of courtesy (to be expected) and requiring the approval of the PM (not a good thing).

To the OP, it's really your call about how far you want to push it, and it also depends on your value there. You could remind them of the written contract, but it probably won't end well if the PM has been given autonomy and her attitude is as described. Personally, I wouldn't stand for it. If they've refused to honour the substitution clause as written in the contract, that's likely to be a material breach of contract (with the agency and, subsequently, between the agency and YourCo; I assume you're working via an agency?), at which point the contractual terms for dealing with a breach can be invoked. However, there's a difference between the PM saying that the substitution would not be honoured, and an actual refusal upon invoking the clause from someone that has the authority.

[SpontaneousOrder]

for what its worth, my contract states that I must get written permission from an authorised representative of the client to take any absence during the contact which hasn't already been agreed.

Qdos review said it wasn't problem as far as IR35 is concerned.

**edit** to be clear... it is the 'contractor' that needs permission in my case - not the 'personnel'. So I guess that that technically doesn't scupper the subbie clause.

[Kess]

What matters is not the contract, primarily, but the reality of the situation.

Oops, you're right. That's the danger of posting without first fully engaging brain.

[SueEllen]

One thing I remember reading before I started "proper" employment is that you need to learn how to manage your "managers". This is even more true now as a contractor.

In your case you are not doing so, you are fighting against her.

As she is so damn controlling and clearly has too much time on her hands, you should have been bombarding her with information.

This means you give her updates on your work as many times as you can feasibly get away with in a week without her noticing you are being an a***. Also give her deadlines where you will do something by then meet it on the dot. Don't deliver it earlier.

When you want time off you should be going to talk to her to "discuss" the project deliverable timetable and whether your time off fits with it. The trick is to schedule your holidays of more than 3 days at the end of your contract before you would get extended. Though this doesn't work if you are going away for more than 2 weeks.

When you are ill it is just good manners to tell a couple of people on your team you aren't well. You need to get a few mobile numbers not just the resource manager's. That way if you can't contact her because she is in a meeting you can tell someone else by phone to pass your message to her as well as leave her a message on her phone.

In regards of asking to put in a substitute the way you asked was simply wrong knowing her control issues.

You should have found other people first. Firstly by looking inside the organisation than outside it who have your skill set. Then only when you wanted time off which clashed with some deliverable should you offered a few of them as a substitute.

Lots of projects say work is urgent but it can normally wait 2 weeks especially if the PM/RM or whatever you call them trusts that you can deliver what you say when you say.

[tractor]

...

What does your contract say about the matter(s) under discussion?

Your OP intimates that other RMs would accept a substitute. What would happen if you waited until your RM is on leave and asked for confirmation from the others

[KayMan]

Thanks for your replies all.

Some of you are making the assumption that the RM is the same as the PM. This is not the case - she is part of the HR team and sits on a different part of the building altogether. PMs (several of them) are super cool and chill - as I said company is great, its just her. I hardly give her much attention to be honest, but she does have to sign my timesheets so I can get paid, I have to continue the peace with her. I am not "fighting her" but am worried that her performance will put me in danger as she is exercising forms of control. It's just her personality and she's probably new to this and doesnt understand . There are worse situations sure - but I'm new to this so just trying to gauge just how much of an issue this is likely to be...

[GettingBy]

for what its worth, my contract states that I must get written permission from an authorised representative of the client to take any absence during the contact which hasn't already been agreed.

Qdos review said it wasn't problem as far as IR35 is concerned.

**edit** to be clear... it is the 'contractor' that needs permission in my case - not the 'personnel'. So I guess that that technically doesn't scupper the subbie clause.

I am new to contracting, so this is more of a question that me making a point - but I thought that a clause like this would show control (master/servant)?