Dragonfly IR35

[Paul77]

Hi

I've been reading about the MKM and Dragonfly IR35 cases they seem to
be concerned with the IR35 substitution clause and that once a contractor
has gained product knowledge he's is not easily subsitutable - should we
be worried about this - we are going to lose more IR35 cases or were these special cases?

Regards
Paul

[PAH]

Don't tell anyone but right of substitution is a white elephant anyway, and it seems to be more down to whoever's judging whether you're caught or not as to how much weight they give it.

In all my years of contracting I've never known anyone actually exercise their right of substitution, if able to.

[The Lone Gunman]

Permies (especialy shift workers) have a right of substitution anyway so I do not see why it should be regarded as a pointer to self employment.

[malvolio]

Permies (especialy shift workers) have a right of substitution anyway so I do not see why it should be regarded as a pointer to self employment.

Well that's an interesting interpretation. "Can't be arsed to come to work today, boss, so I'm sending my brother"... Don't think so somehow.

They may be allowed to swap roles around, although I rather doubt it myself, they certainly can't sub their actual employment. That's why RoS, provided it's reasonably unfettered, means you ain't an employee. Dragnfly's ruling is probably wrong in law and is being appealed.

[PAH]

Appeals were born out of the fairground hoopla. Better luck next time. Oh and that's another 10 grand in fees, if you're lucky.

Amazing how many appeals succeed. So much for the legal system if it can't be relied on to get it right first time. At least there's no death penalty (yet!) with IR35.

[Gordon Brown]

At least there's no death penalty (yet!) with IR35.

Has there been another budget leak from Westminster?

[PAH]

Has there been another budget leak from Westminster?

Yes, the urinals are overflowing again. Now we know where Gordon's Gin comes from.

[The Lone Gunman]

Well that's an interesting interpretation. "Can't be arsed to come to work today, boss, so I'm sending my brother"... Don't think so somehow.

They may be allowed to swap roles around, although I rather doubt it myself, they certainly can't sub their actual employment. That's why RoS, provided it's reasonably unfettered, means you ain't an employee. Dragnfly's ruling is probably wrong in law and is being appealed.

Well it is all about interpretation, but on a number of jobs when I was a shift worker years ago we used to swap shifts when we wanted extra days off or needed a particular date that we were rostered for. I know lots of people who do it now. Hi boss I am doing Xs shift for whatever reason. Obviously it is limited to other employees (though I do know of one brother who turned up for a labouring shift) but it is an RoS.
If we could argue that one well enough we could remove it from the IRs armoury too, eventualy they will have no "absolutes" to attack us with.

If I could prove that an employee of my client has this right does the fact that I dont mean I am not an employee?

[NickFitz]

Well it is all about interpretation, but on a number of jobs when I was a shift worker years ago we used to swap shifts when we wanted extra days off or needed a particular date that we were rostered for. I know lots of people who do it now. Hi boss I am doing Xs shift for whatever reason. Obviously it is limited to other employees (though I do know of one brother who turned up for a labouring shift) but it is an RoS.
If we could argue that one well enough we could remove it from the IRs armoury too, eventualy they will have no "absolutes" to attack us with.

If I could prove that an employee of my client has this right does the fact that I dont mean I am not an employee?

None of that is substitution as it's meant in terms of "right of substitution." That's merely "informal re-arrangement of the duty roster." The fact that somebody once got away with sending his brother into work just means that the management there didn't give a toss about which bodies they had on site, as long as they had the right number.

It would have been interesting to see the legal ramifications had said brother been involved in an accident whilst working there.

[The Lone Gunman]

None of that is substitution as it's meant in terms of "right of substitution." That's merely "informal re-arrangement of the duty roster." The fact that somebody once got away with sending his brother into work just means that the management there didn't give a toss about which bodies they had on site, as long as they had the right number.

It would have been interesting to see the legal ramifications had said brother been involved in an accident whilst working there.

Surely it does not matter what the arrangements are, the fact is that an employee does not have to turn up and do the work themselves. Another person is sent in their stead.

As the brother was a casual labourer I dont think there are any ramifications. He had just agreed a months work and then had to take some time off. These days the two are interchangeable in the building trade but both are pretty well occupied.

The thing that is annoying here is that HMG and the IR want to compare us to builders and other trades. They claim builders can send substitutes and so we must. They conveniantly forget that a lone builder has no subs to send and that a builders customer can refuse the sub.