Wife being released from services - Employed or Self-Employed?

Rueben_2

Hi everyone.

My wife has been informed (through myself, through my line manager through my director .....) that she will no longer be required for the work she does through my company.

She works one day a week with the company on a contractual basis, undertaking the work required for the company's contract with the local council. She has never wanted to be self-employed in the role, but has essentially had no choice. As far as we know the contract with the council requires the person undertaking the work to be an employee, something they are flouting (unfortunately we have no written proof of this but may be able to get this).

My questions are, is this worth fighting? She worked for the last eighteen months, could she attempt an tribunal? (after other avenues have been exhausted first) - clearly the first step would be establishing the nature of her role and whether she was effectively "employed" or not. Unfortunately she hasn't ever had a contract, but would she have any claim to redundancy? Or unfair dismissal?

It might be a long shot.

Is this worth discussing with the contract providers (who she has a good relationship with)?

She's also never had any paid holidays (as to be expected). Any input would be welcome. Thanks. :-)

getmore4less

If she were an employee and made redundant there would be no payment with 18month service.

As an employee there would be notice and holidays.

how is she paid?

I would talk to the people she does the work for to see where the job is going so she can still do it. They might be suprised at the circumstances.


Stir things up too much you could find your job on the line.

anamenottaken

Rueben wrote: »

Hi everyone.

My wife has been informed (through myself, through my line manager through my director .....) that she will no longer be required for the work she does through my company.

She works one day a week with the company on a contractual basis, undertaking the work required for the company's contract with the local council. She has never wanted to be self-employed in the role, but has essentially had no choice. As far as we know the contract with the council requires the person undertaking the work to be an employee, something they are flouting (unfortunately we have no written proof of this but may be able to get this).

My questions are, is this worth fighting? She worked for the last eighteen months, could she attempt an tribunal? (after other avenues have been exhausted first) - clearly the first step would be establishing the nature of her role and whether she was effectively "employed" or not. Unfortunately she hasn't ever had a contract, but would she have any claim to redundancy? Or unfair dismissal?

It might be a long shot.

Is this worth discussing with the contract providers (who she has a good relationship with)?

She's also never had any paid holidays (as to be expected). Any input would be welcome. Thanks. :-)

When you write of "my company" I take it you mean the company which employs you rather than one you own.

How is she paid? Does she submit an invoice? You say she works on a "contractual basis" so I guess she is a contractor and therefore does so and is registered with HMRC as self-employed. Is that correct?

Rueben_2

anamenottaken wrote: »

When you write of "my company" I take it you mean the company which employs you rather than one you own.

How is she paid? Does she submit an invoice? You say she works on a "contractual basis" so I guess she is a contractor and therefore does so and is registered with HMRC as self-employed. Is that correct?

Yes I'm employed by the company at a different centre.

She invoices for the work at the end of each month. Yes, registered with HMRC. It is definitely a self-employed basis, but could the nature of the work mean this could be disputed anyway?

@GetMore4Less: How do you mean speaking with the people she does the work for? The local council?

I don't plan on doing anything that would risk my own job. But I'm obviously going to support her for many reasons where I can, not least because financially it puts us in a precarious position.

dseventy

Just a few questions that spring to mind and hence you might be asked :

1)You state your wife was never happy with the "self employment" aspect of her service. Why is this issue just being persued now? Is it just because she is not needed?
2) Your wife or "your company" does not decide if she is self employed or employed, the HMRC does. See

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employment-status/index.htm#1

for the test between SE vs E.

3) Whats your relationship here with the company, your bosses and the council?

Just a few things to mull over.

D70

anamenottaken

getmore4less wrote: »

If she were an employee and made redundant there would be no payment with 18month service.

As an employee there would be notice and holidays.

how is she paid?

I would talk to the people she does the work for to see where the job is going so she can still do it. They might be suprised at the circumstances.


Stir things up too much you could find your job on the line.

In this case one day's pay for the notice and approximately 3 days' pay for holiday accrued but not yet taken.

Uncertain

getmore4less wrote: »

If she were an employee and made redundant there would be no payment with 18month service.

True but she would have protection against unfair dismissal as her "employment" would have started before April last year.

Rueben_2

dseventy wrote: »

Just a few questions that spring to mind and hence you might be asked :

1)You state your wife was never happy with the "self employment" aspect of her service. Why is this issue just being persued now? Is it just because she is not needed?
2) Your wife or "your company" does not decide if she is self employed or employed, the HMRC does. See

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employment-status/index.htm#1

for the test between SE vs E.

3) Whats your relationship here with the company, your bosses and the council?

Just a few things to mull over.

D70

Hiya.

1) Very much so. She is being let go. No redundancy (an internal employee is going to take on the role), no dismissal following disciplinary. Over a year's service. These "benefits" are being denied to her as she is supposedly a contractor. We feel that is could be challenged, especially since she should be employed regarding the contract between the council and the company (had a look at the tests on HMRC website before). It was potentially an employer-employee relationship.

2) See (1)

3) I'm an employed Centre Manager (different centre) with the company.

getmore4less

Rueben wrote: »

@GetMore4Less: How do you mean speaking with the people she does the work for? The local council?
.

yes, do they know she is being replaced?

She needs to find out if they want/happy with this change.

Rueben_2

getmore4less wrote: »

yes, do they know she is being replaced?

She needs to find out if they want/happy with this change.

Thanks, this is something we are looking into.

dseventy

Rueben wrote: »

Hiya.

1) Very much so. She is being let go. No redundancy (an internal employee is going to take on the role), no dismissal following disciplinary. Over a year's service. These "benefits" are being denied to her as she is supposedly a contractor. We feel that is could be challenged, especially since she should be employed regarding the contract between the council and the company (had a look at the tests on HMRC website before). It was potentially an employer-employee relationship.

2) See (1)

3) I'm an employed Centre Manager (different centre) with the company.

1) See you might get challenged at that. Being SE does have its perks over salaried employment and the situation was tolerated and not persued until services not needed.

2) As she was SE there is no need to go through redundancy or formal procedures, just a notice period, usually zero.

D70