tim.... wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote
How much holidays is the employer
liable for on a "zero hours contract"?

"tim...." wrote
based upon the hours actually worked

"Tim" wrote
What if the contract specifies payment "per job task"
rather than "per hour" - and hours aren't recorded ?

"tim...." wrote
then (assuming the employee were mined to complain) such a blatant
attempt to deny the employee his rightful holiday would be squashed by
the courts

I'm not suggesting that the employer is attempting to deny the employee
their holiday entitlement. I just wondered how that entitlement
would be determined, without a set hourly rate and hours worked...
Do you know how the courts would determine the entitlement?

I told you, on the basis of the actual hours worked.

Not recording this information doesn't mean that it isn't know (by
somebody)

Isn't this whole sub-dicussion a red herring? Surely there is no
holiday entitlement at all. The bottom line is that the ex-employer
wishes to re-engage the ex-employee on a new basis, namely that of a
contract for services as opposed to a contract of employment, in other
words the ex-employee will become self-employed. We may assume for the
purpose of this discussion that the ex-employee is willing to enter into
such an arrangement.

Only an employment contract would carry entitlement for holidays, sick pay,
maternity leave, etc, but in the case of self-employment all these things
are irrelevant.

Now enter the tax man. Rules for taxation of self-employment differ from
those of employment. Usually a self-employed person will pay less tax
(sum of income tax and NI) than an employed person per tax free pound in
his pocket, and for this reason the tax man is keen to spot sham
arrangements where on paper there is a service contract but in practice the
arrangement is indistinguishable from an employment. For example the
"contractor" may do all his work on "client" premises at times determined
by the client, and indeed he may only have the one client. In such cases
the tax man will "deem" there to be a contract of employment and will tax
the two parties as if there were.

But this does not change the *real* contract from service to employment,
the deeming is for tax purposes only. Is that not so?