Morgan McKinley cut my rate 3 times after Microsoft made an offer

[TheFaQQer]

Is this regulation still in effect in this country?

'The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003'

Yes.

[Frank Big Bird]

Yes.

Under Part III Section 14(1.c) and Section 15(d):

14.—(1) Subject to paragraph(7), before first providing any work-finding services to a work seeker, an agency or employment business shall obtain the agreement of the work-seeker to the terms which apply or will apply as between the agency or employment business and the work-seeker including—
(c) in the case of an employment business, the terms referred to in regulation 15,

15. In the case of an employment business, the terms to be agreed in accordance with regulation 14 shall include—
(d) either— (i) the rate of remuneration payable to the work-seeker; or (ii) the minimum rate of remuneration the employment business reasonably expects to achieve for the work-seeker;

I am just showing the key points from regulation here, and I am just showing the job-seeker part. There is another part that shows requirements for the hirer (end-client). please refer to original version for more details.

Basically the regulation says that terms and conditions should be established between agency and client and agency and job seeker first before providing any service. In my case it didn't happen that way.

[Batcher]

Under Part III Section 14(1.c) and Section 15(d):

14.—(1) Subject to paragraph(7), before first providing any work-finding services to a work seeker, an agency or employment business shall obtain the agreement of the work-seeker to the terms which apply or will apply as between the agency or employment business and the work-seeker including—
(c) in the case of an employment business, the terms referred to in regulation 15,

15. In the case of an employment business, the terms to be agreed in accordance with regulation 14 shall include—
(d) either— (i) the rate of remuneration payable to the work-seeker; or (ii) the minimum rate of remuneration the employment business reasonably expects to achieve for the work-seeker;

I am just showing the key points from regulation here, and I am just showing the job-seeker part. There is another part that shows requirements for the hirer (end-client). please refer to original version for more details.

Basically the regulation says that terms and conditions should be established between agency and client and agency and job seeker first before providing any service. In my case it didn't happen that way.

Go get 'em Tiger!!

[TheFaQQer]

Under Part III Section 14(1.c) and Section 15(d):

14.—(1) Subject to paragraph(7), before first providing any work-finding services to a work seeker, an agency or employment business shall obtain the agreement of the work-seeker to the terms which apply or will apply as between the agency or employment business and the work-seeker including—
(c) in the case of an employment business, the terms referred to in regulation 15,

15. In the case of an employment business, the terms to be agreed in accordance with regulation 14 shall include—
(d) either— (i) the rate of remuneration payable to the work-seeker; or (ii) the minimum rate of remuneration the employment business reasonably expects to achieve for the work-seeker;

I am just showing the key points from regulation here, and I am just showing the job-seeker part. There is another part that shows requirements for the hirer (end-client). please refer to original version for more details.

Basically the regulation says that terms and conditions should be established between agency and client and agency and job seeker first before providing any service. In my case it didn't happen that way.

1) Were they acting as an employment agency or an employment business?

2) If you are right, then you have been advised a number of times in this thread what to do - compile your case, find a lawyer, and sue them.

I'm really not sure what more you want people here to tell you. Go win the case, and share the details.

[GlenW]

I'm really not sure what more you want people here to tell you. Go win the case, and share the details.

It's a wind up, that's why.

[Frank Big Bird]

1) Were they acting as an employment agency or an employment business?

2) If you are right, then you have been advised a number of times in this thread what to do - compile your case, find a lawyer, and sue them.

I'm really not sure what more you want people here to tell you. Go win the case, and share the details.

1. Legally speaking, most contractors deal with 'employment business' and this is the case for Morgan McKinley, though I think in general contractors refer to them as 'agency' here in the UK.

2. I am quite sure I will be going after them legally soon, and I am already going after them first through ASA. I hope to establish the case of 'false advertisement' first as that will strength my legal case.

[eek]

1. Legally speaking, most contractors deal with 'employment business' and this is the case for Morgan McKinley, though I think in general contractors refer to them as 'agency' here in the UK.

2. I am quite sure I will be going after them legally soon, and I am already going after them first through ASA. I hope to establish the case of 'false advertisement' first as that will strength my legal case.

No it won't as most of us are still trying to work out what law has been broken and what case you actually have...

[NotAllThere]

1) Were they acting as an employment agency or an employment business?

2) If you are right, then you have been advised a number of times in this thread what to do - compile your case, find a lawyer, and sue them.

I'm really not sure what more you want people here to tell you. Go win the case, and share the details.

Yep, I think this thread has run its course.