Law21 mins ago
Uk Mail Driver Who Was Unable To Work After Car Accident Charged £800
https:/ /www.th eguardi an.com/ busines s/2017/ mar/19/ uk-mail -driver -unable -to-wor k-car-a ccident -charge d-800-p ounds
Does anybody think this is just and fair ? This chap was injured as a result of a car accident while on duty.
But his employer charged him £800 for the injury !
Does anybody think this is just and fair ? This chap was injured as a result of a car accident while on duty.
But his employer charged him £800 for the injury !
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.A similar problem was highlighted last week with another firm, Mikey. As is often the case, all is not as it seems.
Mr Ibrahimov is not (or rather was not) employed by UK Mail. He was a self-employed contractor. He entered into a contract where these charges were clearly explained. The company incurs charges when a contractor fails to fulfil their contract in the same way that you would if you employed somebody who did not come up with the goods as agreed. He was presumably happy with the conditions of the contract. It would be interesting to discover if he was genuinely “self-employed”. A recent tribunal appeal lost by Charlie (“Pimiico Plumbers”) Mullins suggested that many firms are using people on a self-employed basis when in fact they do not meet the definition. Whilst Mr Ibrahimov may have a case to take to a tribunal on that basis, he was presumably perfectly happy with the advantages of being self-employed when he signed his contract and cannot complain when clauses in it are not in his favour. I would imagine that he can claim his losses from the driver who ran him over.
Mr Ibrahimov is not (or rather was not) employed by UK Mail. He was a self-employed contractor. He entered into a contract where these charges were clearly explained. The company incurs charges when a contractor fails to fulfil their contract in the same way that you would if you employed somebody who did not come up with the goods as agreed. He was presumably happy with the conditions of the contract. It would be interesting to discover if he was genuinely “self-employed”. A recent tribunal appeal lost by Charlie (“Pimiico Plumbers”) Mullins suggested that many firms are using people on a self-employed basis when in fact they do not meet the definition. Whilst Mr Ibrahimov may have a case to take to a tribunal on that basis, he was presumably perfectly happy with the advantages of being self-employed when he signed his contract and cannot complain when clauses in it are not in his favour. I would imagine that he can claim his losses from the driver who ran him over.
This is the MWSD attitude to it: http:// tools.h mrc.gov .uk/esi /screen /ESI/en -GB/sum mary?us er=gues t
I got in OK. See if this is better.
http:// tools.h mrc.gov .uk/esi /screen /ESI/en -GB/sum mary?us er=gues t
http://
No legal eagle but I can't believe a contractor can not work solely for one purchaser of their skills at a time. If I employ someone to dig over my garden and lay a path and expect them to be there all week and not off doing things, that wouldn't make me an employer nor they an employee. I'd simply have agreed a contract with someone to do something for me.
That said, I think a company hiring umpteen self employed contractors is something both sides need to carefully consider before agreeing. I don't think it should be the case that anyone feels they have no option but to go self employed in order to find paid work. It should be a considered life choice.
That said, I think a company hiring umpteen self employed contractors is something both sides need to carefully consider before agreeing. I don't think it should be the case that anyone feels they have no option but to go self employed in order to find paid work. It should be a considered life choice.
-- answer removed --
He wasn't charged £800 for his injury.
He chose to work as a contractor with UK Mail. Under the agreed terms when he was unable to provide the service he had to pay the cost of an alternative.
Some people who chose to work as contractors/self employed (lots of builders for example) want to have their cake and eat it in that they want the higher pay and tax/MI/expenses benefits and teh flexibility offered by their contracts but what the same rights as an employed person.
There is a clear grey area still between employed and contactor and as the Uber and Pimlico cases have shown the present basis of some can be challenged successfully but I don't think we can outlaw tehse arrangements as some would seek to do (same with zero hours contracts) as some businesses cannot operate without them and some workers actually prefer this type of arrangement- just as I want a zero hours contract and yet many on the left would want to outlaw those too.
He chose to work as a contractor with UK Mail. Under the agreed terms when he was unable to provide the service he had to pay the cost of an alternative.
Some people who chose to work as contractors/self employed (lots of builders for example) want to have their cake and eat it in that they want the higher pay and tax/MI/expenses benefits and teh flexibility offered by their contracts but what the same rights as an employed person.
There is a clear grey area still between employed and contactor and as the Uber and Pimlico cases have shown the present basis of some can be challenged successfully but I don't think we can outlaw tehse arrangements as some would seek to do (same with zero hours contracts) as some businesses cannot operate without them and some workers actually prefer this type of arrangement- just as I want a zero hours contract and yet many on the left would want to outlaw those too.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.