answersLogoWhite
Labor and Employment Law
Workers Compensation
The Difference Between

What is the difference between an employee and a sub-contractor?

129130131

Top Answer
User Avatar
Wiki User
Answered 2011-09-14 09:20:53

Basically an employee is TOLD what to do, how and when to do it. Is paid by the time doing it and has taxes taken out.

An independent contractor just completes the job, provides his own tools and does it when and how he wants it.

For more details go to then scroll down to the links for more details on independent contractor defintions

The UK

The situation concerning whether someone is an independent contractor or an employee has caused much debate in the UK courts. I have recently won a case involving legal argument on employee status. My arguments followed the principles outlined below.

Under a contract of service a person agrees to serve another - under a contract for services a person agrees to provide certain services for another. A contract of service is normally referred to as a contract of employment.

Contract of employment must contain three elements without which a contract cannot be regarded as a contract of employment:

  1. the contract must impose an obligation on a person to provide work personally
  2. there must be a mutuality of obligation between employer and employee
  3. the worker must expressly or impliedly agree to be subject to the control of the person for whom h works to a sufficient degree to make that person master.

Personal Obligation to provide Work

In Express and Echo Publications Ltd v Tanton[1999] IRLR

The Court of Appeal held that the power to send a substitute meant that this could not be a contract of employment. The irreducible minimum of a contract was for the worker to provide his services personally.

However, where a contract contains a limited power to delegate, that does not lead to an inescapable conclusion that it is not a contract of employment.

MacFarlane v Glasgow City Council [2001]IRLR7. EAT

According to the EAT in Macfarlane, the clause in Tanton allowing the worker to send a replacement was extreme. The worker in Tanton was not under any obligation to attend work. He was always entitled to send a substitute. In MacFarlane the worker was only entitled to send a replacement in the event that he was unable to attend work himself. Therefore the clause was of a far more limited effect and was not sufficient of itself to justify the conclusion that the contract was not a contract of employment.

Staffordshire Sentinel Newspapers Ltd v Potter [2004] IRLR 752

The EAT gave further guidance on the application of Tanton and MacFarlane. The critical question is what is the relevant express term; where there is no clear express term in writing then it may be necessary to look at the overall factual matrix in order to discern that term.

The decision of the EAT in McFarlane v Glasgow City Council, that a contract did not cease to be a contract for personal service simply because, in the absence of an express contractual term dealing with personal service or the use of substitutes, there was, as a matter of fact, a right to substitute in a limited sense, was entirely consistent with the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Express & Echo Publications Ltd v Tanton that an express right to provide a substitute was wholly inconsistent with a contract of service.

Mutuality of Obligations

This means that for the duration of the contract both the employer and the employee must be under a legal obligation to each other. (Carmichael v National Power PLC [2000] IRLR 43) The employee is under an obligation to provide labour for which the employer is under an obligation to provide payment.

Control

This does not mean that the work must be carried out under the employer's supervision, it requires that the ultimate authority over the worker in the performance of her work resides in the employer, so that the employee is subject to the latter's orders and directions.

I hope this is helpful.

I live in Virginia. I had to fight to get my workers comp benefits. There were four criteria which classified me as an employee versus an independent contractor.

1) I was told when to report to work

2) I was told when to quit my day's work

3) I was trained by the person who I worked for

4) They had the ability to fire me

It's not necessary for the person you are working for to take out your taxes. This can already be agreed upon between you and your employer.

If your employer fills out the invoices and you never do, chances are you are an employee.

001
๐Ÿ™
0
๐Ÿคจ
0
๐Ÿ˜ฎ
0
๐Ÿ˜‚
0

Related Questions


Would NOT be a employee unless the subcontractor has a employer.


From my understanding, their is no law for being a sub, just know the difference in employee and sub. that's it


subcontractor join to main contractor to form joint venture but that venture is not partnership


A subcontractor. Bidding a roof by the square is just the way it is done. Just a way to measure it.


A subcontractor is a person hired by another company to perform specific tasks of project, which is often construction of some type. The difference is that a sub-consultant is a person that is contracted by a consultant to provide services to a client.


the employee is just a worker. the manager, is your boss


A current employee is still employed by that particular employer; a former employee is not.


I think you mean to ask "what is the difference between public relations and employee relations?" In essence, there is not a difference. Employee relations is a specialty, a niche within public relations.



An employee who employed under the boundary of limitations with lack of future securities known contractual employee.


A employer is one who hires an individual to work. An employee, is one who works for the employer.


A subcontractor may also be an independent contractor. A subcontractor situation happens when an employer places a contract with a person (or company) to have some work done. If that person (or company) then places a contract with another person (or company) to have all or perhaps a specialist part of the original work done, then that second person (or company) is a subcontractor. From the employers point of view, he only pays the person he has a direct contract with.


A consultant would do research and give advice on a job, a subcontractor would actually do part of the job. Most modern manufacturing is done using many subcontractors to build everything necessary to make a car for instance.


A union daily employee only sucks up to 0bama one fifth of the time a union weekly employee does.


a nominated subcontractor, with various provisions for obtaining indemnities by the subcontractor (or Employer) but under the main contractor responsibility and coordination, or ** another contractor, which FIDIC provides the incumbent Main Contractor is required to give site access, etc, etc to but coordinated by the Employer My own understanding, very simply put is that a nominated subcontractor is actually a "normal" subcontract between Main Contractor and Subcontractor, BUT that the nominated subcontractor is selected by the Employer and price agreed with the Employer directly. That would mean that the Main Contractor has the accountability for the subcontractor, notwithstanding any indemnities. The Consultant has stated today that in their opinion: ** the nominated subcontractor is selected by the Employer and signs a contract direct with the Employer ** the Employer will secure assurances, bonds / performance sureties and warranties direct with the subcontractor, and ** that the Main Contractor DOES NOT sign a subcontract with the subcontractor ** that the main Contractor will not be held liable for certain specified warranties My understanding is that the Main Contractor still should sign a subcontract with the nominated subcontractor and assumes the responsibilities of a Main Contractor over the Subcontractor - though the Employer states that the Main Contractor has no liability specified warranty issues and quality (only). I would believe the Main Contractor still has a number of responsibilities in respect of the subcontractor and their general performance. The Consultant assures they have checked FIDIC and it is normal for the Employer to sign a subcontract direct with the Nominated Subcontractor. I would believe in that case it is not a "Nominated Subcontract", but instead a direct supplementary contract between the Employer and their Contractor (secondary contractor) Can you kindly advise quite simply, the contractual position of a nominated subcontract under FIDIC ...... ie does the Employer sign the contract / subcontract with the Nominated Subcontractor, or is it a subcontract between Main Contractor and Nominated Subcontractor with the normal (in general terms) obligations by the Main Contractor for the Subcontractor, to the Employer.


Not likely. There is no privity of contract between the homeowner and the subcontractor. The homeowner had an agreement with the general contractor, and that's the only person they have a duty to pay. The subcontractor can only pursue payment from the general contractor - to put a lien on the home would be to punish an innocent party - the homeowner. This is between the subcontractor and the general contractor, and there's no reason to bring the homeowner into this, since the homeowner doesn't owe the subcontractor anything.


The prime contractor is contracted by the end customer. Sub-contractors are contracted by the prime contractor or other sub-contractors.


A subcontractor can hire another subcontractor but can only put a lien on the property if the original subcontractor isn't paid. The lien can also be placed if the second subcontractor was not paid because of the original subcontractor was not paid. The replacement of the second subcontractor is not grounds for a lien.


A personnel is the people who work for an employer, and an employee is someone who is paid to work for a person, organization, or company


No a subcontractor can hire another subcontractor and put a lien on the property if the second subcontractor is replaced even with a signed contract. The replacement of the second contractor is not purpose to place a lien on the property. The subcontractor can only place a lien on the property if they were not paid due to the original subcontractor not being paid.


No a subcontractor can not hire another subcontractor and put a lien on the property if the second subcontractor is replaced. There is no reason at this point to put a lien on the property. The lien can only be placed on the property if payment was not made.


A union employee is represented by the union. A non union employee isn't represented by the union. There are times when the union will represent non union employees.


Onroll-Your an employee with organization A Offroll-Your an employee with organization B working as a consultant for organization A


yes they can - a prime contractor holds the actual contract and then in essence hires a subcontractor to do some of the work. an independent contractor is not an actual employee of whoever is paying him for his work. so there is no reason one person can't be both and often they are


An independent contractor is someone who works for themselves not a company. They can work for someone else but not be employed by them. An employee is employed by a company.



Copyright ยฉ 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.