Tx. Co. /To be or not to be an employee

earlearl

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 04-04-02 AT 12:38PM (CST)[/font][p]Employer assigns staff to a client to help that client get caught up on work. When assignment ends, employee is placed on "no assignment" until another assignment comes up. This employee is not paid in the interim and no company benefits of any kind are ever offered these employees(working or not). If I understand TWC correctly, if an employee ends an assignment and is not paid in the interim while waiting for another assignment they are considered no longer an employee of said company. But if they were paid in the interim or sent directly to another assignment then they would continue to be considered an employee. Employer insists not a temporary agency and states his attorney set company up as "not to be considered a temporary agency" but TWC handling co. as such re: unemployment benefits. Ruling was since employee was not assigned another position at end of last assignment and/or not paid during interim they were no longer employed by our company and thusly entitled to unemployment. Can anyone help explain? I understand the reasoning receiving UI but not about being considered no longer an employee. We were also asking employees turn in a resignation notice if they were to quit (even if on "no assignment")so we would know they were no longer wanting to work for co. but TWC again states "person was not an employee if on no assignment" and no such notice needs to be given and person does not have to even call in to state they are no longer available for work as they are not employees.

I understand temporary agency vs regular employers but this employer stands by his statement of not being a temporary agency. Could the difference of using the term "consultant vs employee" be the answer? Help, please.