Temporary Contract

LittleVoice

chuckley wrote: »

cheaper to keep u as a temp as ur on less money and have zero rights and the 'new contract' erases any holiday accrued.

so they'll make u sign a new 1 every 3 months... a day over and HO class u as perm regardless, but the shop will give u a new contract anyway to make u 'think' ur still a temp.

What are you talking about here?

If it is about the new Agency Workers rules, then the legislators are fully aware of employers who might have tried to get round things by ending a contract and then taking the same person back on immediately or after a very short break. And they have prevented that exploitation in the rules.

fedster

LittleVoice wrote: »

No that's not right.

After 12 weeks (so no earlier than 12 weeks from 1 October 2011 for those working as an agency worker before then), you need to have same conditions as a permanent employee in respect of pay and holiday - but not pension. You do not have to be offered a permanent position.

From day one, you are to have access to staff facilities (like rest rooms and car parking) on the same basis as permanent staff and to be notified of job vacancies.

So what will be the difference between a permnant employee and an Agency guy, if both will have the same rights apart from the pension?

SarEl

Emplawyer wrote: »

A permanent employee can only dismissed with notice for one of the fair reasons, eg conduct, capability, redundancy or 'some other substantial reason'.

An employee on a fixed term contract can be dismissed for these reasons and also the reason that their fixed term contract has expired.

Not if they have more than twelve months service they cannot. They have the same rights to be considered under redundancy protections - alternative suitable employment and redundancy pay after two years. Otherwise it is an unfair dismissal. It has not been the case that the ending of a fixed term contract was automatically a fair dismissal since the 1980's.

Emplawyer

SarEl wrote: »

Not if they have more than twelve months service they cannot. They have the same rights to be considered under redundancy protections - alternative suitable employment and redundancy pay after two years. Otherwise it is an unfair dismissal. It has not been the case that the ending of a fixed term contract was automatically a fair dismissal since the 1980's.

Agreed but the OP does not have more than 12 months service, which was the context of my original answer.

SarEl

Emplawyer wrote: »

You can keep signing as many temporary contracts as you like, but you have little or no security. Four years continuous employment on temporary (or fixed term) contracts is the maxiumum. After that the contract is deemed to be permanent. But an employer can easily get round that by having a gap between contracts which breaks continuity.

OH, and sorry but this isn't true either. After four years temporary or fixed term contracts directly with an employer you attract the right to ask to be made permanant - whatever that means because permannat isn't a legal concept since no contract exists that cannot be terminated. The employer can still refuse but must provide good reason for doing so, and it can then be challenged in law.

SarEl

Emplawyer wrote: »

Agreed but the OP does not have more than 12 months service, which was the context of my original answer.

That is not what you said. You said "An employee on a fixed term contract can be dismissed for these reasons and also the reason that their fixed term contract has expired. " It is not true that "an employee" can be dismissed for the reason that their contract has expired, any more than it is true that a "permanant" employee with less than 12 months service can only be dismissed for the reasons you outlined in the same post - anyone with less than 12 months service can be dismissed for any reason provided it is not related to discrimination or whistleblowing, because they have no right to claim unfair dismissal. You did not refer to the context - you made a sweeping and misleading statement which does not accord with legal practice.

anamenottaken

fedster wrote: »

So what will be the difference between a permnant employee and an Agency guy, if both will have the same rights apart from the pension?

The agency worker is still on a temporary.

Not getting pension rights can be quite substantial (I had one employer who was paying about 20% of my salary as their pension contribution).

Though you have the right to be notified of vacancies, in a redundancy situation you would not be in the pool of those who would be considered. You don't get the right to be appointed just because you are working there.

fedster

anamenottaken wrote: »

The agency worker is still on a temporary.

Not getting pension rights can be quite substantial (I had one employer who was paying about 20% of my salary as their pension contribution).

Though you have the right to be notified of vacancies, in a redundancy situation you would not be in the pool of those who would be considered. You don't get the right to be appointed just because you are working there.

If an Agency Worker reaches 12 weeks, the following will be the same as a Permnant Employee;

• Pay
• Hours
• Facilties
• Holidays

What i dont understand is, if they have got the right to 40 hours per week like the regulars, and also Holidays, how can they still be temporary? Do you mean they can get laid of at any time?

KiKi

Emplawyer wrote: »

A permanent employee can only dismissed with notice for one of the fair reasons, eg conduct, capability, redundancy or 'some other substantial reason'.

An employee on a fixed term contract can be dismissed for these reasons and also the reason that their fixed term contract has expired.

An employee on a FT contract really is no different to someone on perm. They can BOTH be sacked for no reason before 12 months (discrimination excepted) and they BOTH have to be dismissed fairly after 12 months. Your statement is thoroughly misleading.

I specifically said it was for more than 12 months' service. You just categorically stated that FT contracts have no protection. That's simply wrong.

But the employer can still terminate the contract fairly by allowing it to end naturally, with appropriate notice, so their position is hardly "the same" as permanent staff.

Why is this different to permanent staff? As above, after 12 months they do NOT terminate by allowing it to end naturally, they have to follow redundancy procedures. Before 12 months, the employer can terminate perm staff fairly by also giving notice. It is *exactly* the same.

You make it sound like FT staff are in a worse position from an employment protection perspective which is simply untrue. Your contract is more *likely* to end if you're FT, yes, but legally the management of it is the same - which is what my post said.

KiKi