and still up to date.
Reliance really does it the whole time.
I have worked through Reliance Emp.
I quote a part of Reliance’s reply for my request letter for information.
Your letter regarding a request under the Agency Workers Regulations had been passed to my attention. I have reviewed your file and am a little perplexed why you persist in trying to represent yourself as an “employee” when you know full well that you were engaged as a Subcontractor under a Contract the Services, supplying your business or services, and as such are not covered by either the Working Time Regulations or the Agency Workers Regulations.
This was
made clear to you at registration
clearly set out in your Contract the Services, a copy of which you were given to take home (further copy attached)
specifically highlighted at the me you sign the contract (see your initials beside clause 2)
discussed on several occasions with numerous members of staff.
… nor am I going to waste me on any further correspondence regarding issues of this nature. Should you be unhappy with this I suggest you pay for some competent legal advice (ACAS and free websites, due to their political leanings, often misrepresent the true legal position) and if you still feel aggrieved take or whatever legal action you feel necessary. I hope you find this response sufficiently direct and unequivocal and trust the matter is now closed.
I know many workers who worked/work through Reliance Emp. and they prefer to be quiet or find another job than fight with Reliance emp. They did not read a contract and did not know what sort of contract signed until I told them.
I am in touch with a trade union and a solicitor because I intend to lodge a claim against Reliance Emp. to the ET. This sort of case is very difficult to win.
Reliance’s owner has couple businesses and over 30 years of experience in this area. He knows what he does.
and still up to date.
Reliance really does it the whole time.
I have worked through Reliance Emp.
I quote a part of Reliance’s reply for my request letter for information.
Your letter regarding a request under the Agency Workers Regulations had been passed to my attention. I have reviewed your file and am a little perplexed why you persist in trying to represent yourself as an “employee” when you know full well that you were engaged as a Subcontractor under a Contract the Services, supplying your business or services, and as such are not covered by either the Working Time Regulations or the Agency Workers Regulations.
This was
made clear to you at registration
clearly set out in your Contract the Services, a copy of which you were given to take home (further copy attached)
specifically highlighted at the me you sign the contract (see your initials beside clause 2)
discussed on several occasions with numerous members of staff.
… nor am I going to waste me on any further correspondence regarding issues of this nature. Should you be unhappy with this I suggest you pay for some competent legal advice (ACAS and free websites, due to their political leanings, often misrepresent the true legal position) and if you still feel aggrieved take or whatever legal action you feel necessary. I hope you find this response sufficiently direct and unequivocal and trust the matter is now closed.
I know many workers who worked/work through Reliance Emp. and they prefer to be quiet or find another job than fight with Reliance emp. They did not read a contract and did not know what sort of contract signed until I told them.
I am in touch with a trade union and a solicitor because I intend to lodge a claim against Reliance Emp. to the ET. This sort of case is very difficult to win.
Reliance’s owner has couple businesses and over 30 years of experience in this area. He knows what he does.
If he’s been quite clear with you at registration that he’d be denying you holiday pay or treating you as a business, then I’d say he’s given you the rope to hang him.
It’s not a difficult case to win. It’s one of the most straightforward cases of holiday pay being withheld, and of a worker being misrepresented as a business, both wilfully and calculatedly.
If you are on a Contract of Service they are correct you are not an employee, you provide a service to them for money. Because of this you would be covered by the AWR if you have never signed to opt out.
Reading your post I think they know this and you would win any case because they will never go to court but you will still lose your job at the end
mac12:
If you are on a Contract of Service they are correct you are not an employee, you provide a service to them for money. Because of this you would be covered by the AWR if you have never signed to opt out.
Reading your post I think they know this and you would win any case because they will never go to court but you will still lose your job at the end
He doesn’t need to be an employee, only a worker. The latter has covered all sorts, including a genuinely self-employed doctor’s relationship with a plastic surgery centre, and an accountancy partner’s relationship with the partnership.
In general, the EU-derived worker’s rights are given maximum effect by the judiciary (because they are backstopped by the European courts if Britain fails to give effect to them), unlike the British-only employment rights which were neutered in the British courts from the 1970s onwards.
mac12:
If you are on a Contract of Service they are correct you are not an employee, you provide a service to them for money. Because of this you would be covered by the AWR if you have never signed to opt out.
Reading your post I think they know this and you would win any case because they will never go to court but you will still lose your job at the end
He doesn’t need to be an employee, only a worker. The latter has covered all sorts, including a genuinely self-employed doctor’s relationship with a plastic surgery centre, and an accountancy partner’s relationship with the partnership.
In general, the EU-derived worker’s rights are given maximum effect by the judiciary (because they are backstopped by the European courts if Britain fails to give effect to them), unlike the British-only employment rights which were neutered in the British courts from the 1970s onwards.
That’s what I put if you are an employee of the agency or self employed you don’t come under the AWR