Full time hours to be split across 2 associated companies. Help?

bap98189

Jarndyce wrote: »

I would be seriously concerned at this arrangement.

At best, it is an indication that the company/group are undergoing serious financial problems. At worst, it is fraud.

Or it could just be to make their accounting more representative of the real situation. If they are two separate companies and the OP is working for both, it's hardly unreasonable for the costs of that employment to be split between the two companies.

Jarndyce

bap98189 wrote: »

Or it could just be to make their accounting more representative of the real situation. If they are two separate companies and the OP is working for both, it's hardly unreasonable for the costs of that employment to be split between the two companies.

Then why not make the split representative of the actual time split?

Maybe I'm naturally suspicious, but I don't like it.

jfh7gwa

Jarndyce wrote: »

Maybe I'm naturally suspicious, but I don't like it.

Exactly, because the OP has much more to lose than to gain here.

Apart from the fact that her employer is the one who's approached her with this, they haven't clearly identified why they're doing it, nor what advantage it is for this OP to accept. Never mind assured her that she won't lose out here (regarding employment rights, redundancy rights, and so on).

Everything about this setup screams "dodgey as hell for no incentive to the employee". I would be suspicious of it too.

bap98189 wrote: »

If they are two separate companies and the OP is working for both, it's hardly unreasonable for the costs of that employment to be split between the two companies.

I do agree. But:

If they wanted to allocate costs onto the second (half hour a week) company, such as admin costs, etc - then this should be done accurately. The 2nd company surely doesn't have a leg to stand on if HMRC starts poking around and asks why the OP is employed 50% of her pay in one, 50% in another, yet the tasks she's clearly doing and the amount of time spent on their contracts doesn't correlate - if the 2nd employer tried to defend itself with something about "costs of employment", the investigators would see right through it.

edited to add: actually since the employee here is female, i'm guessing we should be adding maternity rights into that equation too.

LeSigh

zagfles wrote: »

OK, if the 2 jobs were completely separate jobs for completely separate employers with the same wages you quote, say an office job and a pub job for instance, you'd save a vast amount of NI (about £870 a year) compared to a single job with the same total wage, and you would still get the same NI credits. Same for your employers. .

The companies are separate in the sense that they are both limited companies with their own vat numbers etc etc but the same person owns them both and operates them from the same place. Based on the fact they are "associated" I am told I will not see a reduction in NI contributions. I am to get two payslips. One from each company.

bap98189 wrote: »

Or it could just be to make their accounting more representative of the real situation. If they are two separate companies and the OP is working for both, it's hardly unreasonable for the costs of that employment to be split between the two companies.

Just to clarify. I applied for a position with the main company 18 months ago and received a permanent part time contract. The new company was created maybe 1st quarter of this year and just operated alongside the main one. I have never applied for a position within it, never been asked to work for it and have no contract with the new company. I don't do a "set" amount of work for the new company... I just do my normal role and where a client meets "x" criteria, I just type the new company's name instead of the main one. That's it. Oh and I electronically file it under the new company's name. I might ask the client a question or two - under the new company's name. All from the same chair using the same PC!

jfh7gwa wrote: »

Exactly, because the OP has much more to lose than to gain here.

Apart from the fact that her employer is the one who's approached her with this, they haven't clearly identified why they're doing it, nor what advantage it is for this OP to accept. Never mind assured her that she won't lose out here (regarding employment rights, redundancy rights, and so on)..

This is exactly what I am worried about. But as the company staff consists of the owner, the accts person and erm me... I am not particularly comfortable with 1:1 confrontation and no representation.

I dont' even know what happened to the talk of my full time contract with the main company... Why am I working full time now if nothing was agreed! Arghhh
I've been advised this may affect my future plans to apply for a mortgage also... seriously, as my username suggests... le sigh!

Thank you all very much your for help. I will probably make notes of concerns raised here and take them to my employer. If I can't face it, I might just look for the full time employment elsewhere (which is how I got in this mess. I told my employer I was looking for FT and he offered me full time there instead...)