Question about Teaching Company Schemes and Employment Law
Discussion
A recruitment agency have got me an interview for a Job as a business improvement manager, but the MD of the company has forged some deep links with a university and in the course of the conversation with the RC it came out that I'd be technically employed by a university on a teching company scheme. (which was a good thing because there's a training availability that is infinite - IF YOU HAD THE TIME)
The issue I have is that she skirted around it by saying that after the 3 years you'd then be employed by the company itself.
I see it as a way for the company to get exturnal funding, and on the face of it, they should be praised for that.
BUT
Seems to me that after 3 years, YES, they could employ you, or no they could let the contract lapse. Not being a risk taker this sort of worries me, although it's no different than being made redundant with the statutory minimum (which lets face it is feck all)
What do our employment law experts think ?
The issue I have is that she skirted around it by saying that after the 3 years you'd then be employed by the company itself.
I see it as a way for the company to get exturnal funding, and on the face of it, they should be praised for that.
BUT
Seems to me that after 3 years, YES, they could employ you, or no they could let the contract lapse. Not being a risk taker this sort of worries me, although it's no different than being made redundant with the statutory minimum (which lets face it is feck all)
What do our employment law experts think ?
My first thought is the glass is half full/half empty analogy...
I lot of people get offered 3 month probations, or 6 month or a year contracts which are renewed. Compared to that 3 years is positively better!
I seem to remember though that there are situations where employees can be deemed legally to be a full time employee rather than a short contract staffer. For example the same company may dish out 12 month contracts year after year for 5 years - after that time it could well be argued is that what the company is really using is a full time employee and using the contract situation to get around the legal implications.
Your situation is slightly different, and to be honest I dont know what yoru contract will say - which will outline the exact situation.
The other thing to consider is that it does sound like every other new, small or big company, a lot of change happens in three years, and no-one can plan exactly that far ahead.
This may be a good one to 'roll with' and see what happens, I wouldnt have too many worries if the job itself was good.
I lot of people get offered 3 month probations, or 6 month or a year contracts which are renewed. Compared to that 3 years is positively better!
I seem to remember though that there are situations where employees can be deemed legally to be a full time employee rather than a short contract staffer. For example the same company may dish out 12 month contracts year after year for 5 years - after that time it could well be argued is that what the company is really using is a full time employee and using the contract situation to get around the legal implications.
Your situation is slightly different, and to be honest I dont know what yoru contract will say - which will outline the exact situation.
The other thing to consider is that it does sound like every other new, small or big company, a lot of change happens in three years, and no-one can plan exactly that far ahead.
This may be a good one to 'roll with' and see what happens, I wouldnt have too many worries if the job itself was good.
justinp1 said:
My first thought is the glass is half full/half empty analogy...
I lot of people get offered 3 month probations, or 6 month or a year contracts which are renewed. Compared to that 3 years is positively better!
I seem to remember though that there are situations where employees can be deemed legally to be a full time employee rather than a short contract staffer. For example the same company may dish out 12 month contracts year after year for 5 years - after that time it could well be argued is that what the company is really using is a full time employee and using the contract situation to get around the legal implications.
Your situation is slightly different, and to be honest I dont know what yoru contract will say - which will outline the exact situation.
The other thing to consider is that it does sound like every other new, small or big company, a lot of change happens in three years, and no-one can plan exactly that far ahead.
This may be a good one to 'roll with' and see what happens, I wouldnt have too many worries if the job itself was good.
I lot of people get offered 3 month probations, or 6 month or a year contracts which are renewed. Compared to that 3 years is positively better!
I seem to remember though that there are situations where employees can be deemed legally to be a full time employee rather than a short contract staffer. For example the same company may dish out 12 month contracts year after year for 5 years - after that time it could well be argued is that what the company is really using is a full time employee and using the contract situation to get around the legal implications.
Your situation is slightly different, and to be honest I dont know what yoru contract will say - which will outline the exact situation.
The other thing to consider is that it does sound like every other new, small or big company, a lot of change happens in three years, and no-one can plan exactly that far ahead.
This may be a good one to 'roll with' and see what happens, I wouldnt have too many worries if the job itself was good.
My thoughts are similar to what you have expressed.
Most new jobs are 6 month probation period, 3 years is a long time and There are no guarantees, and being associated with a University is good if I want to move into a consultancy role in the future.
justinp1 said:
My first thought is the glass is half full/half empty analogy...
I lot of people get offered 3 month probations, or 6 month or a year contracts which are renewed. Compared to that 3 years is positively better!
I seem to remember though that there are situations where employees can be deemed legally to be a full time employee rather than a short contract staffer. For example the same company may dish out 12 month contracts year after year for 5 years - after that time it could well be argued is that what the company is really using is a full time employee and using the contract situation to get around the legal implications.
Your situation is slightly different, and to be honest I dont know what yoru contract will say - which will outline the exact situation.
The other thing to consider is that it does sound like every other new, small or big company, a lot of change happens in three years, and no-one can plan exactly that far ahead.
This may be a good one to 'roll with' and see what happens, I wouldnt have too many worries if the job itself was good.
I lot of people get offered 3 month probations, or 6 month or a year contracts which are renewed. Compared to that 3 years is positively better!
I seem to remember though that there are situations where employees can be deemed legally to be a full time employee rather than a short contract staffer. For example the same company may dish out 12 month contracts year after year for 5 years - after that time it could well be argued is that what the company is really using is a full time employee and using the contract situation to get around the legal implications.
Your situation is slightly different, and to be honest I dont know what yoru contract will say - which will outline the exact situation.
The other thing to consider is that it does sound like every other new, small or big company, a lot of change happens in three years, and no-one can plan exactly that far ahead.
This may be a good one to 'roll with' and see what happens, I wouldnt have too many worries if the job itself was good.
Is there a recent case stated on this. I know central govt. now let al temporay staff go after 11 months and they have to stay way for a month before coming back as they were deemed to be 'employees' with employment rights.
jacko lah said:
A recruitment agency have got me an interview for a Job as a business improvement manager, but the MD of the company has forged some deep links with a university and in the course of the conversation with the RC it came out that I'd be technically employed by a university on a teching company scheme. (which was a good thing because there's a training availability that is infinite - IF YOU HAD THE TIME)
The issue I have is that she skirted around it by saying that after the 3 years you'd then be employed by the company itself.
I see it as a way for the company to get exturnal funding, and on the face of it, they should be praised for that.
BUT
Seems to me that after 3 years, YES, they could employ you, or no they could let the contract lapse. Not being a risk taker this sort of worries me, although it's no different than being made redundant with the statutory minimum (which lets face it is feck all)
What do our employment law experts think ?
The issue I have is that she skirted around it by saying that after the 3 years you'd then be employed by the company itself.
I see it as a way for the company to get exturnal funding, and on the face of it, they should be praised for that.
BUT
Seems to me that after 3 years, YES, they could employ you, or no they could let the contract lapse. Not being a risk taker this sort of worries me, although it's no different than being made redundant with the statutory minimum (which lets face it is feck all)
What do our employment law experts think ?
It won't be a TCS scheme as they were replaced by KTP about 3 years ago. There is no legal onus on the company to take you on, as there is no requirment on you to accept a position with them at the end of the three years. KTP only works by the grant provided by the DTI to give funding for the project. If there were any obligation or contract between you and the company it would amount to subsidised employment, which it isn't.
www.ktponline.org.uk/
olf said:
If there were any obligation or contract between you and the company it would amount to subsidised employment, which it isn't.
www.ktponline.org.uk/
www.ktponline.org.uk/
Except that in the text of the 15 page job spec it says that at the end of 3 years your employment will continue with the manufacturing company.
Note that it's does say it's a KTP but it's not on that list.
jacko lah said:
olf said:
If there were any obligation or contract between you and the company it would amount to subsidised employment, which it isn't.
www.ktponline.org.uk/
www.ktponline.org.uk/
Except that in the text of the 15 page job spec it says that at the end of 3 years your employment will continue with the manufacturing company.
Note that it's does say it's a KTP but it's not on that list.
What is the exact wording shown on the page you refer too?
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff