Advice Needed: Employer not paying previous work due to early departure

[Mctribal]

Hi

I am in a complicated situation and I am looking for some perspective.

I started as a contractor at this company at the beginning of October. The first month of probation passed without any issues, and two weeks later (so one month and a half in the six month contract), I got news of an emergency which required me to move back home quickly (I am French). So I served my two-weeks notice, which was due to end on a Tuesday.

The week before that Tuesday, I figured I needed to leave quicker than expected, so I requested an earlier leave, which the manager granted, allowing me to leave on the Friday before my actual notice end date.

The issue arose as, on Thursday eve, I realized I still needed to do a lot of things before leaving the UK, so I sent an email saying that I was extremely sorry but would not be able to come in on Friday. I am absolutely aware that it was not in line with what was required, but I couldn't see a way around it. I definitely did not feel great about that.

Understandibly, the manager went ballistic. But I didn't expect what would follow: she wrote me that, if I didn't show up on Friday, I would not be paid for the four days of work of that week that I had already done. I thought she was blowing off some steam and would eventually cool down. However, after waiting some time and sending the invoice, she refused to honour it.

Obviously, I get why she is upset. But this strikes me as completely illegal. Again, I am aware that I broke the terms of the contract, but I figured that one day could not hurt the business that much (it is a large company), and if it comes down to it, I am willing to go back there to do that last day, though I find it a little ridiculous.

What should I do? She is using the pay of work that has been done as a retaliation, and I'm guessing she expects me to fear a legal retaliation of her own should I sue for that money. It also seems the recruiting agency has sided with her as a way to keep her business, since they have known her for a while.

What should I do? Should I try to get this pay, or should I consider myself lucky? Though the situation started because of me, it just doesn't feel right.

Many thanks for your help

[northernladuk]

Hi

I am in a complicated situation and I am looking for some perspective.

I started as a contractor at this company at the beginning of October. The first month of probation passed without any issues, and two weeks later (so one month and a half in the six month contract), I got news of an emergency which required me to move back home quickly (I am French). So I served my two-weeks notice, which was due to end on a Tuesday.

The week before that Tuesday, I figured I needed to leave quicker than expected, so I requested an earlier leave, which the manager granted, allowing me to leave on the Friday before my actual notice end date.

The issue arose as, on Thursday eve, I realized I still needed to do a lot of things before leaving the UK, so I sent an email saying that I was extremely sorry but would not be able to come in on Friday. I am absolutely aware that it was not in line with what was required, but I couldn't see a way around it. I definitely did not feel great about that.

Understandibly, the manager went ballistic. But I didn't expect what would follow: she wrote me that, if I didn't show up on Friday, I would not be paid for the four days of work of that week that I had already done. I thought she was blowing off some steam and would eventually cool down. However, after waiting some time and sending the invoice, she refused to honour it.

Obviously, I get why she is upset. But this strikes me as completely illegal. Again, I am aware that I broke the terms of the contract, but I figured that one day could not hurt the business that much (it is a large company), and if it comes down to it, I am willing to go back there to do that last day, though I find it a little ridiculous.

What should I do? She is using the pay of work that has been done as a retaliation, and I'm guessing she expects me to fear a legal retaliation of her own should I sue for that money. It also seems the recruiting agency has sided with her as a way to keep her business, since they have known her for a while.

What should I do? Should I try to get this pay, or should I consider myself lucky? Though the situation started because of me, it just doesn't feel right.

Many thanks for your help

Very simple and plenty of threads on here about it.

Firstly I assume you are direct and not via an agent.

What you have to remember here is that are breach of your contract. That does not, however, mean they can withhold money for work already done. The proper process is that they pay you the money and the sue you for breach of contract for whatever amount they believe you've cost them.

In nearly all the threads we've had in the past it's been the agent that should be suing for lost income. The jury is out on how much that could be but its not really a lot. If it's direct they could bump it up if its had an impact on revenue and so on. No idea what that could be.

So, you need to get your money back first. To start off you've got to start 'dunning' them. You are going to have to keep mailing them requesting the money as per contract. Including references to relevant legislation and case law will help. Somewhere down the line you reference the late payments act and you'll be charging interest. At some point their legal team or HR will fold as you've got them bang to rights and they will know it so it's likely you'll get your money. Could be awhile so you are going to have to be patient.
You might also want to contact a company called PayOnTime who post good advice on here.

In most cases the agent will fold and after a lot of threats to sue will drop the issue. There just isn't enough money in it to warrant going further. If you are dealing with a client direct they may either have a much more established process and experience in dealing with suppliers that breach, in which case you are in a spot of bother. They'll easily trump up a number far in excess of what you are owed.

At this point you've got to make a judgement call. Will they go through with it and are you going lose a lot more than you gain? It's down to the size of your cojones. We can't really help here but I have to say I wouldn't be pushing it too far just for 4 days money. You might think differently but it's your call.

Maybe a compromise of 2 days money to nip it in the bud. I dunno.

Start dunning first and see what their response is. If they go quiet keep going. If they threaten to sue for breach instead then it's decision time.

[northernladuk]

Oh crap. I've just re read and see there is an agent involved. Your contract is with your agent so you shouldn't be speaking to your client. The client pays the agent and the agent pays you. Stop talking to the client and deal with the agent. That's who's contract you've breached.

Check your contract. Does it say anything about you not getting paid if the client doesn't pay. If so then you are screwed. It's there in black and white. If it doesn't carry on with the advice I gave above but with the agent. That's who you have a contract with and who you will be suing.

[northernladuk]

And usual pedantry about the fact they are Not your employer and she isn't your manager. You are a contractor not a permie.

[jmo21]

Every now and again, we get something like this where someone must quit a contract because of an emergency.

I must admit to being sceptical about the real reasons every time I see one, but giving the benefit of the doubt, I wonder whether the best thing to do would be instead to tell them you can't come in because of the emergency, and play it by ear from there.

Leave the contract "open", keep the client informed that you are unavailable for whatever emergency situation it is.

Then in a couple of weeks time, you may be in a position to go back in for a few days handover, or even if the emergency situation clears up entirely, you can work again as normal.

If the other alternative is to quit, then it won't matter to you if they eventually they decide to let you go due to ongoing unavailability. You might still end up in a situation where they are annoyed, and try to withhold pay, but it may be *slightly* better than the situation the OP finds him/herself in.

[Old Greg]

Every now and again, we get something like this where someone must quit a contract because of an emergency.

I must admit to being sceptical about the real reasons every time I see one, but giving the benefit of the doubt, I wonder whether the best thing to do would be instead to tell them you can't come in because of the emergency, and play it by ear from there.

Leave the contract "open", keep the client informed that you are unavailable for whatever emergency situation it is.

Then in a couple of weeks time, you may be in a position to go back in for a few days handover, or even if the emergency situation clears up entirely, you can work again as normal.

If the other alternative is to quit, then it won't matter to you if they eventually they decide to let you go due to ongoing unavailability. You might still end up in a situation where they are annoyed, and try to withhold pay, but it may be *slightly* better than the situation the OP finds him/herself in.

Or give the client the option of early termination or accepting a sub.

[jmo21]

Or give the client the option of early termination or accepting a sub.

Well yes, that's what he/she did do, then seemingly needed to leave even earlier than the client had accepted which got their back up.

This is to try and avoid that type of situation.

[mike67]

If this is through an agency then one key question is whether or not the candidate has opted out of the conduct regulations. Under Regulation 12 there are restrictions on cases where the agency can refuse to pay the worker for work they have already done.

Whilst the correct approach would be for the company/agency to pay and then to sue for the breach of contract, this could be a case where possession is ten tenths of the law, ie at the momeny they hold all the cards. If the company/agency refuses to pay, the OP would have to sue and at that point the company could counter-claim the cost to them for the breach of contract, which would be a better approach than just paying up and trying to sue for the breach. Whilst I have sympathy for the OP, I also think that the client "manager" has been decent here in not kicking off on the 2 weeks notice and then accepting an earlier finish date of the Friday, and probably had a load of handover fixed up for the Friday and was told with zero notice on the Thursday evening that the OP was not doing taht last day. It would not be difficult to convince the Court that the behaviour was unreasonable and that this had an impact on the client's business.

By all means the OP should try to fight this and in particular if they are in scope of the conduct regulations, but I would not be surprised if the agency and client ignored them.

[northernladuk]

If this is through an agency then one key question is whether or not the candidate has opted out of the conduct regulations. Under Regulation 12 there are restrictions on cases where the agency can refuse to pay the worker for work they have already done.

Whilst the correct approach would be for the company/agency to pay and then to sue for the breach of contract, this could be a case where possession is ten tenths of the law, ie at the momeny they hold all the cards. If the company/agency refuses to pay, the OP would have to sue and at that point the company could counter-claim the cost to them for the breach of contract, which would be a better approach than just paying up and trying to sue for the breach. Whilst I have sympathy for the OP, I also think that the client "manager" has been decent here in not kicking off on the 2 weeks notice and then accepting an earlier finish date of the Friday, and probably had a load of handover fixed up for the Friday and was told with zero notice on the Thursday evening that the OP was not doing taht last day. It would not be difficult to convince the Court that the behaviour was unreasonable and that this had an impact on the client's business.

By all means the OP should try to fight this and in particular if they are in scope of the conduct regulations, but I would not be surprised if the agency and client ignored them.

Conduct regs only help if the OP hasn't got a signed timesheet. In this case it's irrelevant. Agent and client has accepted he's due money and they just aren't giving it him.

[mike67]

Conduct regs only help if the OP hasn't got a signed timesheet. In this case it's irrelevant. Agent and client has accepted he's due money and they just aren't giving it him.

Actually Regulation 12(b) of the Conduct Regs says the agency can't withhold payment even if there is no signed timesheet providing they can satisfy themselves by other means that the work-seeker worked for the particular period in question. One of the better things about not opting out is that any clauses in contracts requiring signed timesheets are invalidated.