Umbrella Companies?

[Eric Mc]

So a COMPANY can treat an employee in such a way that his/her human rights are breached?

And the individual cannot seek redress against the company under Human Rights Legislation?

And what about the myriad other pieces of legislation that protect the rights of workers (and note that I don't use the word "employees")?

[allergictocheese]

Everyone must abide by legislation that applies to them. The Human Rights Act applies to the relationship between the state and its subjects.

Read the Human Rights Act if you don't believe it. You will note it does not include causes of action or obligations against individuals or businesses.

[Eric Mc]

So one individual cannot breach another's Human Rights either?

[Eric Mc]

So one individual cannot breach another's Human Rights either?

But I don't want to get hung up on Human Rights. I also referred to all the other rules and regulations that are supposed to stop employers abusing their position or bullying staff.

[allergictocheese]

Unless the defendant is a public body, you cannot take someone to court for a breach of the Human Rights Act.

The provisions of the Human Rights Act protect people more generally because other legislation, such as the Employment and Disability Discrimination Acts for example, have to be compatible with the HRA.

So if you feel your employer is breaching your human rights, you may have a cause of action under other legislation. If you don't, you cannot take them to court for a breach of human rights, unless they are a public authority.

Edited by allergictocheese on Sunday 21st December 08:58

[Eric Mc]

Fair enough. As I said, I wasn't intending this to be discussion on the Human Rights Act but more to highlight the fact that "employers" are not at complete liberty to force issues onto potential staff.

[allergictocheese]

I may be wrong but I don't believe there is any legal impediment to a company deciding it will only contract with incorporated bodies.

[Eric Mc]

No - but there may be an impediment to forcing someone to incorporate. I have actually seen this happen - in situations where the individual was a totally inappropriate person to be made set up a limited company. Or the situation did not really warrant the formation of a limited company.

This is especially so when the company will be extremely vulnerable to harsh tax rules, such as the imposition of IR35 - or the new burden of Autoenrolment which looks like it is going to cause serious problems for a lot of small companies.

This is a serious issue -

http://www.companybug.com/lower-paid-workers-force...

[Dr Jekyll]

Does a company saying 'we will only sign a contract for your services if you operate through a company' constitute 'only dealing with incorporated bodies' (OK) or 'forcing someone to incorporate' (Not OK)?

I'd say the former.

[Eric Mc]

There will be subtle variations on how its worded. I have a client who was told that they MUST form a limited company in order to stay working for the same organisation - for which they had been let go as an employee.

I think that is bullying in the extreme. The poor girl was in tears talking to me about the pressure she had been put under.

And I am pretty sure it breaches a whole load of employment and tax regulations (if not "Human Rights").

[Dr Jekyll]

Many people positively prefer working through a LTD, for the rest of us it's just a minor inconvenience.

[Eric Mc]

I am not against choice - and small limited companies can work really well for some individuals. But not everybody is cut out to be "a company director" and they may actually enjoy being a proper employee and member of a team.

If you do CHOSE to go down the one man band company route - that is perfectly fine. The important word is "chose". The option should never be forced on someone, especially when it's an employer forcing their current staff to "go limited". That is just not on.