To ask if they can really fire my mum for this?

[GilligansKitchenIsland]

My mum has worked for the last 30+ years for a religious (Christian) non-profit organisation. She's not paid by the organisation for her work; she raises her own funds by talking about her work at churches, and people who are on board with it can pledge to give her a monthly donation. The donations are made out to the organisation but specified for her. The organisation takes a 10% cut to cover their admin costs, and then deposits the remainder into her bank account. On paper, and for tax purposes, she's considered self-employed (on the advice of HMRC). But for all other intents and purpises she's a de facto (?) employee of this organisation - she works in their office, has a boss within the organisation who assigns her duties and signs off her annual leave, is bound by their policies, etc.

Recently, the organisation employed a new director who has been making some changes, one of which is to "clean up" some of the staffing. My mum has been variously told that her role is being restructured and there will no longer be a position for her, that they're upgrading to new software and they don't anticipate that she'll be able to adapt, and after that, that she "looks too miserable" and will probably have to go. She hasn't been given a timeframe for when she will be asked to leave, but they've made it clear she will be.

Because she's not officially employed by them, she's (presumably) not protected by employment law. She's also not part of any trade union. There is an HR department in the organisation - but they're the ones asking her to leave, so she can't appeal to them for help.

I realise her situation vis her employee status is very unusual but does anyone have any insight into her rights here? Can they really ask her to leave after so many years service with no good reason? She's dedicated her career to this organisation at significant personal cost, and is pretty devastated that they would screw her over right at the end of her career.

(Sorry for the long post and for (mis)using the AIBU topic for traffic!)

Still unsure what if is that actually gets done if there are a number of fundraisers who take 90% of what they raise as income and the other 10% pays for private fundraisers to raise funds
What 'gets done'is what the 350 people on my mum's situation spend the bulk of their time doing. I don't want to identify her particular role as it's a bit outing, but by way of example, say her role is developing literacy teaching materials in Language X, which is spoken by 50,000 people in Nigeria. She does this because she believes people have the human right to learn to read and write in their own language (as well as in the national language). However, the Nigerian government isn't interested in a language spoken by so few people, so they haven't invested in educational resources for them. The speakers of Language X are keen to learn as they feel their illiteracy has hindered them in life, but they're by and large very poor and can't afford to pay for the teaching materials.
So my mum goes to churches and similar places in the UK, explains the situation, and people say, "Well I also think the X people have the right to be literate; if the Nigerian government isn't willing to pay for this, and the people themselves aren't able to, then I'll sponsor you £50 a month to make it happen."
My mum then goes to the organisation and says, "I'll take Language X" and they go, "Great, we'll give you an office and train you in how to develop literacy materials. You can work in our literacy development department, which is run by Ms Brown - she will be your boss."
Ms Brown is in a similar situation in that she believes everyone has the right to literacy, and her skills set includes managing people, so she has gone to churches etc and said "In can train people to develop literacy materials in different languages, but there's no money to do it", and people have gone, "That's something I can get behind - I'll sponsor you to do it".
The 10% donated out of the members' sponsorship goes towards sustaining the UK operations (running the office here, employing fundraisers etc). All of the money that's raised by the fundraisers goes towards training the members and providing them with the tools they need to do their work, and towards e.g. the admin involved in setting up the Language X school in Nigeria.
Not enough funds are raised by the organisation as a whole to pay all the members a fulltime salary, and rent office space, and enable the overseas operations.

No wonder 'she looks miserable' if they're effectively sending her out to beg for her salary from the organisation's supporters .

I am no clearer. If your DM is taking £45 and the admin/fundraisers is taking the other £5 how is any money being allocated to get people in Nigeria to teach the language

Seems to me she's a fundraiser on a commission-only basis. She is happy to accept the low wages because she believes in the cause. She has entered into this of her own free will and the organisation is non-profit. I don't think they should be demonised based on the limited information provided.

Good point Oliversmumsarmy.

Its an unusual financial setup but by no means uncommon - if that's a reasonable distinction to make. This blog post explains the funding issues perhaps a little better than I have. www.dahlfred.com/index.php/blogs/gleanings-from-the-field/490-where-do-missionaries-get-their-money

I have known several people working on this basis for “churches” and “charities”. It’s one of the reasons I am very sceptical about charities. It strikes me as a massive tax evasion scheme (mostly employer NI) which also usually exploits the worker as well as the employer avoids giving employment rights, holding employer insurance, stakeholder pensions, etc.

Each time there is an implication that the purity of the cause justifies the squalor of the employment terms. Now we have seen that Oxfam and Save the Children are cesspits in different ways but the same underlying excuse, I conclude that the smug sanctity of charity is just a cover for basically shitty organisations to exploit everyone in sight.

But the ops DM is a fundraiser who only seems to support raising funds to pay herself and the admin . Not a missionary.

That seems like very little money for the actual schools and perhaps the materials are sold on, which in itself isn’t an issue but it sounds as though your mother is being exploited. Even if she entered into this of her own volition.

I think differently. I don't think OP's mum is being exploited. My concern is that people are donating money to a cause but it may be that much of that money is going to support salaries rather than going to the cause.

There's an Employment Status Indicator on the .gov website. That'll give you an idea about whether she's an employee / worker / self-employed and after doing that speak to ACAS2. I'm guessing she's not self-employed.

Why on earth would your DM want to do this? It sounds dodgy and cult like to be honest

But the ops DM is a fundraiser who only seems to support raising funds to pay herself and the admin . Not a missionary.

No, she isn't. RTFT, or at least the OP's posts. The OP has said her mum only spends about 5% of her time fundraising. The rest of the time she spends doing the work all these people in churches are sponsoring her for (developing and teaching language X in the OP's hypothetical example).

OP it sounds like the key to better treatment by the organization is whether or not she should actually be legally treated as an employee. I would say, if a lawyer thinks she has a reasonable case, she ought to pursue them so that others are protected now and in the future. However, she may be concerned about going this route since a finding in her favour sounds like it could potentially bankrupt the organization, and she, presumably, has a great deal of investment int he work the organization does. If she doesn't want to pursue that road to the full extent, she might consider laying out the possibility before her boss (and probably her boss's boss) and suggesting they give her a softer exit, the details of which she should have ready for them.

@Oliversmummy - no, she is a missionary. Her job is not raising funds for the organisation; that's the fundraisers job. Her job is developing literacy in Nigeria (I mean, it's not, but by way of example).
I am no clearer. If your DM is taking £45 and the admin/fundraisers is taking the other £5 how is any money being allocated to get people in Nigeria to teach the language
The money is allocated to enable her to live while she facilitates the teaching in Nigeria using her experience as a teacher here. So she goes to Nigeria and trains some teachers from the X people group, works with them to develop textbooks in their language etc. Some of this work is done in Nigeria; some is done remotely from the UK. The people who have donated £50 have donated that specifically for the purpose of allowing her to pay her rent and feed herself while she participates in the Nigerian teaching. Even charity workers and missionaries have bills to pay and stomachs to fill. Her income through by this means is less than she would receive on jobseekers allowance - it's not some kind of get rich quick scheme.

I have read the full thread. Ops DM does not teach literacy in Nigeria or anywhere else she develops literacy materials. Which could mean photocopying pamphlets. What happens to the literacy material isn't mentioned as there doesn't seem to be any money left from the £5 after paying Mrs Browns wages and office overheads

The use of developing literacy materials and teaching in Nigeria was a hypothetical example Olivers.

I know charities are (rightly) under the microscope at the moment, but not every charity worker is a scam artist. Some of them actually are just trying to do something they believe in. Others of course have sinister motives and the public is right to examine these.
I realise missionary work also has a chequered history to say the least, and there are lots of issues around old colonialist models, the concept of the "white man saviour, saving the savages" etc. Those are valid questions, but people have written entire PhDs on them and it's waaay out of my scope to try and answer them on this thread!

@BoomBoomsCousin - However, she may be concerned about going this route since a finding in her favour sounds like it could potentially bankrupt the organization, and she, presumably, has a great deal of investment int he work the organization does. Yes, this is absolutely the case. She does still believe in the overarching ideals of the organisation, even if she doesn't agree with how she herself has been treated by them.

Sorry cross posted.

With your update I think your DM couldn't really be considered as an employee. It sounds more like she is donating her time and getting sponsored to do something she cares deeply for.

I would put it in the same vein as someone asking for sponsorship to run the London marathon.
As an employee she wouldn't have had to pay for her trips to Nigeria or her accommodation etc

I'm saying this supportively, but you have now made it obvious exactly which Christian organisation she works for. I went through very similar with exactly them 20 years ago and discovered that they lack any respect whatsoever for either UK law or for the livelihoods of their workers. I would suggest your mum gets a shit-hot lawyer. And I say that as a sympathetic and practicing Christian.

Olivers I think you might be right. Some of the ACAS pages etc have a section on 'volunteers rights' (spoiler alert: they don't have any) and I suspect she might fall into the 'volunteer' category even though it's basically been her entire career.
I'm kicking myself for not realising earlier what a vulnerable position she was in. She joined the organisation decades ago when it was charities were perceived with greater naivete differently, and I don't think it occurred to her that they would leave her high and dry. As PPs have said it doesn't seem very 'Christian'!
She does have access to a state pension so although we will look into ACAS, AGE discrimination and IR35, I suspect she'll just retire. Just feels crappy for the career she was committed to to end in this unpleasant way.
Thank you for all the advice that's been shared here.

Get professional advice
Start with ACAS as they are free

imo, The aim should be to get a decent "redundancy" payment, as your mum at 69 should not be working - on below NMW - and scrabbling around to find donors to sponsor her pay

Sounds cruel behaviour for a charity, but they can be very exploitive to workers low down the chain - and the higher ups probably think they'll be in trouble if this ridiculous system comes out

oliversmumsarmy, the op has explained it clearly, has said she doesn't want to give identifying details, provided examples and acknowledged the unusual nature of the operation. You obviously don't understand it, but that doesn't make it a scam.

Op, various family members of mine also have extensive backgrounds working with Christian organisations. It's often the case that no one within them has quite realised that the normal laws of employment apply to them too. Certainly the usual good principles of HR are rarely taken into account. E.g see the case of the incompetent 'family's worker' who got the job by virtue if being the wife of another employee. Of course this is never acknowledged! But it's hard to argue with god's callings. My point is that I'm not at all surprised to hear they have behaved so despicably. It will perhaps not have even occurred to the new director that anyone would pursue a complaint through official channels. I'm sure your mum would have other concerns were she to do this. I imagine she has strong personal ties to the work of the organisation and perhaps to colleagues or others connected to it.

You have my sympathies. It's a hard situation to watch someone be so hurt and rejected and it's really not like a 'normal' job in terms of how deep and complex this can be.

Some of them actually are just trying to do something they believe in

That you believe in what you are doing does not absolve you from scrutiny of either your motives or the way in which you carry out your work. If "Mother" Teresa didn't teach us that, then the recent focus on Oxfam should. It's perfectly possible to believe in what you are doing and nonetheless be doing something pretty terrible.

Some of the ACAS pages etc have a section on 'volunteers rights' (spoiler alert: they don't have any) and I suspect she might fall into the 'volunteer' category even though it's basically been her entire career

If she's been paying tax then I wouldn't be so sure of this - it's at least worth checking with an employment lawyer, if you think affording a consultation is at all feasible. Her situation is so complex that I think you need an expert not a generic advice line or sheet. I suppose there's an argument that she is a volunteer who gets expenses paid, but it's definitely worth investigating properly - this could potentially make a very big difference to your parents' security in retirement.

"often the case that no one within them has quite realised that the normal laws of employment apply to them too... It will perhaps not have even occurred to the new director that anyone would pursue a complaint through official channels."

@Pimpernell182 Ummmmm, you are naive: as an organization, they do know, and they absolutely do know. They put massive emotional and spiritual pressure and guilt trips on people who try to insist on their legal entitlements. But they know.