Macron is really miffed

[GerryT]

That's ok then cause this has nothing to do with employment law, it's about contract law.

What is a contract without an employer and employee. An employee has a contract of employment. All very confusing for you Nick

Have you got that proof you were looking to dig up, where Germany rules the EU, you know, an example of how Germany tells the other 26 countries what to do. How does Germany tell the other members what to do so that Germany controls the EU ?
Simple question, a photo doesn't cut the mustard, any improvement on that Nick ?

[patman post]

(snip)
The story out there just doesn't add up.

It may not, but there is no doubt there were cost escalations and delays — Reuters cites documentary evidence from both nation's politicians.   
We don't know whether the dispute was correctly addressed by both parties, but having experience of large French state-backed companies I am aware of their arrogance towards smaller partners. And many Australians remember France's cavalier attitude towards protests about French nuclear testing on their doorstep — even more than they're still upset about British tests.
This will no doubt get settled — but meanwhile, Macron probably wants to boost his image at home for the presidential polls. He'll likely be satisfied with whispered promises of something thrown in his direction later, while still publicly going through the hurt routine for the voters...

[Nick]

If they are your contractor for 20 yrs and you terminate their contract they care entitled to redundancy payment

If you have a contractor for any time you can terminate using any of the clauses in the contract. If they want to claim redundancy then they have been working under disguised employment and HMRC will hammer you for PAYE.

[Nick]

There is no one set of common employment rules that all EU countries follow

That's ok then cause this has nothing to do with employment law, it's about contract law.

[GerryT]

ed at $40 billion and more recently at $60 billion, even before construction had begun, also showed problems emerging. In June the defence secretary told parliament "contingency planning" for the programme was under way.   

How much will Nuclear Subs cost in comparison.
The French could have changed from Diesel to Nuclear. The contract was based on the French Barracuda Nuclear sub.
Were both parties behind the delays, I read somewhere that issues with warranties & contract terms were one of the main reasons for delays.
Arrogance doesn't come into it, it's contractual. It most likely won't be a simple problem, he said - she said, type of thing. But the detail will become clearer with time. But with Canada not saying "Why" and France very upset, there's more to this story.  You wouldn't be that upset if you were constantly late and had a contract cancelled. Some questions not answered:
Why was their such large cost over-runs, surely AUS had a fixed price contract for a set scope, usually their maybe allowance for increased costs but only when the client either delays the contract so costs increase or the client adds or changes the scope of contract. If the supplier delays the contract it would be highly unusual that this would see a price rise. Quite the opposite, the client would usually have penalty clauses for such an event.
The story out there just doesn't add up.

[patman post]

Extracts from Reuters Sydney, Sept 21 — France shouldn't have been surprised that Australia cancelled a submarine contract, as major concerns about delays, cost overruns and suitability had been aired officially and publicly for years.   
As early as September 2018, an independent oversight board led by a former U.S. Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter had advised Australia to look at alternatives to the French submarine, and questioned whether the project was in the national interest, a 2020 public report from the country's Auditor-General shows.   
Australian parliamentary hearings and reports on the project, first priced at $40 billion and more recently at $60 billion, even before construction had begun, also showed problems emerging. In June the defence secretary told parliament "contingency planning" for the programme was under way.   
A French lawmaker also raised questions in the country's parliament in June about Australian concerns over delays, and whether Australia might be considering submarine alternatives, French government records show.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australian-documents-showed-french-submarine-project-was-risk-years-2021-09-21/ 

It seems delays and cost escalations were known well before Australia went looking for an alternative. It wouldn't surprise me if we discover that French arrogance, and the superiority they assume when dealing with lower ranks, might have blinded them to the possibility that the Aussies were getting pissed off with the way they were being treated...

[GerryT]

It was a contract for the sale of goods and services. But what difference does it make? It won't affect the damages amount France would be entitled to if Australia is in breach. If Australia isn't in breach because the contract allowed them to terminate, then the French have nothing to complain about - they should have made a better contract. It's all just guesswork until details of the contract appear. As far as I can see, the major issue for the French is being excluded from the Aukus alliance.

Exactly the point I was making when it was drawn onto silly employment terms. Is France that upset about being left out. UK media seems to think so, do the French care as much as the UK seems to think they do.
France seems mostly upset over the SUB's contract

[Nigel]

It was a contract for the sale of goods and services. But what difference does it make? It won't affect the damages amount France would be entitled to if Australia is in breach. If Australia isn't in breach because the contract allowed them to terminate, then the French have nothing to complain about - they should have made a better contract. It's all just guesswork until details of the contract appear. As far as I can see, the major issue for the French is being excluded from the Aukus alliance.

[GerryT]

If you wish a lawyer good morning he can make mince meat of you, which is why only fools go to law if it can be avoided, any employer who can will make his employees contractors and HMRC love PAYE.

Any employer with some knowledge knows that doing this makes no difference, the "contractors" have employee rights just like anyone else. If they are your contractor for 20 yrs and you terminate their contract they care entitled to redundancy payment, they could push for pension contributions in certain circumstances and a good case for compensation for unfair dismissal.
The court in these cases looks to see if the "contractor" has
Any other source of income
Does the employer provide desk/phone or pay an allowance for this
Does the employer give the contractor job lots to complete

It can be a very expensive problem for employers.

[GerryT]

Gerry you are just espousing EU rules because we both know that was one of new Labours last efforts at keeping us in the EU. Feeding the troops a little fodder. Like I said a political student with no sense of reality.

There is no one set of common employment rules that all EU countries follow

[Borchester]

Employers do this all the time, send employees on training courses, get them to complete risk assessments, tool box talks, inspection of equipment. Site specific induction courses etc, etc..
But all of that doesn't absolve the employer of his responsibility. If something were to happen to you a good employment lawyer could make mince meat of the employer.

If you wish a lawyer good morning he can make mince meat of you, which is why only fools go to law if it can be avoided, any employer who can will make his employees contractors and HMRC love PAYE.

[Sheepy]

Gerry you are just espousing EU rules because we both know that was one of new Labours last efforts at keeping us in the EU. Feeding the troops a little fodder. Like I said a political student with no sense of reality.

[GerryT]

Not quite.
The contracts my company entered into made it crystal clear that my company had to satisfy the Navy it was experienced in making risk assessments to protect its employees and customers.
As I was, at that time, a professional Divemaster, I chucked them the stuff PADI and the UK HSE gave me certifying I had undergone training in such, and the assessments I had made of various dive sites at which I charged people for my time. They asked me and my instructor to come and risk assess HMS Dolphin the military dive school and paid us for it !
But the radar maintainance contracts were explicit. I was expected to do my own risk assessment and had the authority to refuse to do the work on safety grounds.
As such, it was pretty clear any HSE failings other than deliberate concealment of hazards from me or otherwise interfering with my ability to make my own assessment of risk were not going to be the Navy's problem....
I did make one demand if the navy using those HSE powers. I took the man aloft key up the mast. I figured if I fell off the navy would have to fish me out of the water to get it back.

Employers do this all the time, send employees on training courses, get them to complete risk assessments, tool box talks, inspection of equipment. Site specific induction courses etc, etc..
But all of that doesn't absolve the employer of his responsibility. If something were to happen to you a good employment lawyer could make mince meat of the employer. What ever happened to you he would break down and look at from dozens of angles, he would make the case that the employer didn't do enough, its never enough. Why ? very simply because something happened to you and there's always a way to prove that more could have been done. The Employer is then pinned with the "more could have been done"

[Borchester]

Utter shash: an employment contract is a contract between an employer and an employee. The employer has to pay employers NIC's and handle the PAYE, getting a contractor to do work is not a contract of employment and if they hurt them selves it depends on whether the home owners 'Exercise Control Over the Project'. Most people let a contractor just get in with it so NO, they're not liable and the contractor will claim on his own insurance.

A task based contract is terminated once the task is complete and is conducted on a business to business relationship.

Try telling HMRC there is no difference between a business to business relationship and a contract of employment. It's called IR35 and they'll slap you with PAYE tax.


The French did commit to the schedule and promised a letter outlining that by a certain date, they missed that date and lost the contract.

KPI's and SG's are pretty much standard in a contract, you'd know if you'd ever had dealings with them. Contracts of employment don't have them so you'd have never seen them.

Utter shash: an employment contract is a contract between an employer and an employee. The employer has to pay employers NIC's and handle the PAYE, getting a contractor to do work is not a contract of employment and if they hurt them selves it depends on whether the home owners 'Exercise Control Over the Project'. Most people let a contractor just get in with it so NO, they're not liable and the contractor will claim on his own insurance.

A task based contract is terminated once the task is complete and is conducted on a business to business relationship.

Try telling HMRC there is no difference between a business to business relationship and a contract of employment. It's called IR35 and they'll slap you with PAYE tax.


The French did commit to the schedule and promised a letter outlining that by a certain date, they missed that date and lost the contract.

KPI's and SG's are pretty much standard in a contract, you'd know if you'd ever had dealings with them. Contracts of employment don't have them so you'd have never seen them.

In short, has Gerry got a Contract of Employment or a Contract for Employment?

My son is currently charging £500 a pop for just the first consultation on this matter. I pointed out that is was largely bollocks because HMRC usually go for the first because it is very much to its advantage, but that Uncle would often back down if you hammered away long enough. Black letter law has gone the way of hot metal and Fathers of the Chapel on this one and no one really knows what is going on.

The kid has told me to shut up (at least in the hearing of his clients), because he is on a nice little earner with this.

I love that boy 

[johnofgwent]

And if you were injured on the job, your employer could be held responsible and would pay for that.

Not quite.


The contracts my company entered into made it crystal clear that my company had to satisfy the Navy it was experienced in making risk assessments to protect its employees and customers.


As I was, at that time, a professional Divemaster, I chucked them the stuff PADI and the UK HSE gave me certifying I had undergone training in such, and the assessments I had made of various dive sites at which I charged people for my time. They asked me and my instructor to come and risk assess HMS Dolphin the military dive school and paid us for it !


But the radar maintainance contracts were explicit. I was expected to do my own risk assessment and had the authority to refuse to do the work on safety grounds.


As such, it was pretty clear any HSE failings other than deliberate concealment of hazards from me or otherwise interfering with my ability to make my own assessment of risk were not going to be the Navy's problem....


I did make one demand if the navy using those HSE powers. I took the man aloft key up the mast. I figured if I fell off the navy would have to fish me out of the water to get it back.