Immediate termination rights in first 10 days - is this a standard contract clause?

**uctech** · 11 August 2010, 20:45

You know that is exactly what I thought. I don't mind being 'terminated' if I'm not performing, but to expect not to paid....

Has anyone else had this come up before, or had any experience with such a contract clause? I am trying to find some logic in such a statement other than just the potential to rip me off.

**northernladuk** · 12 August 2010, 20:54

To be honest you are better than most. Many contracts have a days notice (so virtually immediate) and also if there is no work to do you don't get paid. It don't matter if you have 3 months notice. If there is no work you don't get paid.

**SizeZero** · 12 August 2010, 21:07

Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

Many contracts have a days notice (so virtually immediate) and also if there is no work to do you don't get paid. It don't matter if you have 3 months notice. If there is no work you don't get paid.

That's a little different to what the OPs being asked to sign though. If he was terminated on day two, he still should be paid for his services on day one (whether or not he was kept busy on that day). They (agent or company?) could legally get ten full days work for free, if he were to sign that. A cynic would think how nicely 'two weeks' would fit in with the annual leave of a permie on a family holiday....

No, it is not a standard contract clause, someone is trying it on. You are right to expect to be paid for work done.

**northernladuk** · 12 August 2010, 22:57

Originally posted by SizeZero View Post

That's a little different to what the OPs being asked to sign though. If he was terminated on day two, he still should be paid for his services on day one (whether or not he was kept busy on that day). They (agent or company?) could legally get ten full days work for free, if he were to sign that. A cynic would think how nicely 'two weeks' would fit in with the annual leave of a permie on a family holiday....

No, it is not a standard contract clause, someone is trying it on. You are right to expect to be paid for work done.

You are absolutely right my apologies.

**Zippy** · 13 August 2010, 00:26

Originally posted by SizeZero View Post

That's a little different to what the OPs being asked to sign though. If he was terminated on day two, he still should be paid for his services on day one (whether or not he was kept busy on that day). They (agent or company?) could legally get ten full days work for free, if he were to sign that. A cynic would think how nicely 'two weeks' would fit in with the annual leave of a permie on a family holiday....

No, it is not a standard contract clause, someone is trying it on. You are right to expect to be paid for work done.

And a very nasty, very cynical thought just occurred to me too. I think I've been doing this too long...
Anyhoo - should the OP not get the contract changed and decide to take the risk, then under no circumstances should he submit timesheets to the agency until the 10 days are up (make it 15 to be safe). That way, in the (highly) unlikely event <snigger> that the agent tries to shaft you he will find it difficult to get paid too.

Seriously OP - this clause is BS and you should not agree to it.

**Mich the Tester** · 13 August 2010, 09:25

Originally posted by Lightship

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with the first part:

.....but there's no way in hell I'd agree to the last part:

I would invoice for, and expect to be paid for, all services rendered up until the point of termination.

whs

My contract has the 15 day immediate termination clause, but I would never agree to the 'not paying' bit.

**Paddy** · 16 August 2010, 12:55

Originally posted by uctech View Post

Hello,

As per guidelines I've checked the search etc to see if there are any answers for my particular question and couldn't see any, so hopefully someone can help...!

I'm returning to contract after 3 years on the permanent side (7 years contracting before that) so I am a bit rusty on the contracting side of things and have lost touch with my old contracting buddies. There a clause in the contract that concerns me, and was wondering if the forum could advise:

"If the representative proves unsuitable to the client within the first 10 days of assignment then immediate notice will be given and the contractor will not charge the company for any time within the first 10 days."

I was just wondering, has anyone seen this clause before and is it pretty standard? Maybe its something that works in my favour with regards to IR35, but a few years ago I wouldn't have expected to have a company terminate my contract without me getting paid just because it was in the first 10 days. I'd still have expected to be paid my time worked and any termination notice period .

Can anyone offer any help / advice on if I should renegotiate this clause or just go with it due to it being standard?

Thanks.

Name and shame please.

**SueEllen** · 16 August 2010, 14:54

Originally posted by uctech View Post

Can anyone offer any help / advice on if I should renegotiate this clause or just go with it due to it being standard?

Get the entire contract reviewed as there are probably other sh*tty clauses in there that you haven't noticed.

**Wanderer** · 16 August 2010, 17:57

Originally posted by uctech View Post

"If the representative proves unsuitable to the client within the first 10 days of assignment then immediate notice will be given and the contractor will not charge the company for any time within the first 10 days."

Termination clause is OK (just accept that as part of contracting) but not getting paid? They're having a laugh. Like Paddy says - name and shame them.

Immediate termination rights in first 10 days - is this a standard contract clause?