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

getmore4less

Uncertain wrote: »

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

Redundancy is a fair reason to terminate, bumping is legal so having someone else do the job could be fine.

Not saying that she should not have been an employee but this in itself would not give much/any protection, maybe a small payout which may be worth persuing.

Why have hubby notify the wife? OP should have passed this back to the part of the company that engaged the wife.

Uncertain

dseventy wrote: »

2) Your wife or "your company" does not decide if she is self employed or employed, the HMRC does. See

They do but only for tax purposes.

Under some circumstances HMRC can take one view and an employment tribunal can take the opposite. Neither is binding on the other.

Rueben_2

getmore4less wrote: »

Why have hubby notify the wife? OP should have passed this back to the part of the company that engaged the wife.

Hmmm, yes I'm with you on that one. My line manager (not my wife's contract manager) was not happy that she had been told to tell me, so I could tell my wife.

But the point is moot really from a financial perspective.

Rueben_2

dseventy wrote: »

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

I can see your point. The main issue is that service contract did particularly specify that the person engaged to undertake the role should be an "employee" of the company. I suppose technically they're now correcting that! But this is why we're thinking about challenging this, because the lack of notice period or redundancy has left us on a limb really (not that it would be much, but squeezed times).

getmore4less

Rueben wrote: »

Hmmm, yes I'm with you on that one. My line manager (not my wife's contract manager) was not happy that she had been told to tell me, so I could tell my wife.

But the point is moot really from a financial perspective.

I suspect it is a hint, we know who you are so don't cause any trouble especialy if she has raised the issue in the past.

Back to the council and what they think.
Might be they found out she is only contract and want it changed.
or they may know nothing about it and will be suprised when some one new takes over the job.

dseventy

Rueben wrote: »

I can see your point. The main issue is that service contract did particularly specify that the person engaged to undertake the role should be an "employee" of the company. I suppose technically they're now correcting that! But this is why we're thinking about challenging this, because the lack of notice period or redundancy has left us on a limb really (not that it would be much, but squeezed times).

The only reason to persue it is on merit, if there is a breach of employment law, not simply as it leaves you "squeezed".

From what I have read, I dont think there is, sorry.

D70

Rueben_2

dseventy wrote: »

The only reason to persue it is on merit, if there is a breach of employment law, not simply as it leaves you "squeezed".

From what I have read, I dont think there is, sorry.

D70

Fair dos. Thanks.

Rueben_2

getmore4less wrote: »

I suspect it is a hint, we know who you are so don't cause any trouble especialy if she has raised the issue in the past.

Back to the council and what they think.
Might be they found out she is only contract and want it changed.
or they may know nothing about it and will be suprised when some one new takes over the job.

This is the main approach at the moment. Although it's difficult to be certain it would achieve anything. Thanks.

getmore4less

Rueben wrote: »

This is the main approach at the moment. Although it's difficult to be certain it would achieve anything. Thanks.

might they have got suspitious no holidays for 18 months.

If the key is to keep the income then if the people she work with/for are happy with the job they may have some influence, obviously it will depend on the role and how it fits in with the company you work for.

They(council) could employ direct, or ask for her to be retained.
She could offer to do it on a contract basis perhaps at lower cost

how is holiday and sick suposed to be covered?

Rueben_2

getmore4less wrote: »

might they have got suspitious no holidays for 18 months.

If the key is to keep the income then if the people she work with/for are happy with the job they may have some influence, obviously it will depend on the role and how it fits in with the company you work for.

They(council) could employ direct, or ask for her to be retained.
She could offer to do it on a contract basis perhaps at lower cost

how is holiday and sick suposed to be covered?

Certainly a possibility, but it would have to on council premises because the cost of hiring out premises would potentially be prohibitive. But the council may be able to influence the company - certainly, I am aware of the two people who may take over the contract and personally and professionally I don't think either of them are suitable or have the skills for it. But I could be wrong.

Holiday or sickness was always an issue. She only ever took unpaid leave, and gave the council plenty of notice so that they wouldn't schedule work for her regular days. Sickness was meant to be covered by the company's Contract Manager (her liaison within the company as well - incidentally, he's on leave at the moment but was a strong supporter of her, so will be interesting seeing his reaction, although I wouldn't expect him to necessarily be able to reverse the decision!). Quite often, sickness was managed by cancelling the clients booked in for the day, which the council hated doing. But interestingly, they never blamed my wife, rather were annoyed that there never seemed to be anyone available to cover her if she was sick (she has congenital heart disease).