Is this non-compete clause valid?

[NibblyPig]

New contract, this clause exists:

During the Term and for 12 months thereafter, the Consultant Company and the Consultant shall not directly or indirectly compete
with [Recruitment agency] in any way, nor shall it supply, solicit or canvas with the intent to supply to the Client, or any other client introduced by [Recruitment agency],
or any person or corporate body that the Consultant Company or Consultant is introduced to as a direct or indirect result of
their dealings with [Recruitment agency], services of a similar nature to those needed to perform the Task.

Sounds like it's not in my interest to sign, since it's a short contract and I suspect they may offer extension, and aren't there recruiter regs about this? I haven't opted out or been asked about opting out.

[Chuck]

Chances are the agent won't even mention opting in or out. They will send you an opt-out form buried in all the other paperwork and hope you sign without questioning it.

As for 12 months, on a short contract, this would be unreasonable and probably unenforceable legally.

However, I once returned direct to an old client where I had a 12 month restriction clause. The agent got stroppy with the client who backed down and allowed them to own the contract. I'm not that bothered as they are a good agent and it didn't affect my rate, but all the same, what may not be enforceable legally may still bind you if you have a weak client.

[NibblyPig]

You're spot on, have just found said buried document...

Do you think it's better for me to rock the boat now or just sign everything with a smile and then deal with it later? I've interviewed so opting out wouldn't even be enforcable...

[Chuck]

Do you think it's better for me to rock the boat now or just sign everything with a smile and then deal with it later? I've interviewed so opting out wouldn't even be enforcable...

I'm always wary of such certainty. On paper this may be the case, but unless someone can prove it, or it has been tested in court then it is just opinion.

I suspect, with this in/out rule, most of us are actually opted-in despite signing an opt-out form. Agents are not fools (well they are, but also they aren't IYSWIM), they will know the arguments around this yet still they make us sign the forms. I'd like to see it tested.

As for rocking the boat, it depends how strong your hand is. If the client wants you enough, the agent can do little about it. If there's uncertainty, as was seen on another post about payment terms recently, the agent has the upper hand.

Good luck.

[kyber]

For the consultant company, yes
But for the consultant, no

In UK, the rights of the individual to choose who to work for cannot be overridden by such clauses ...

... but the consultant would not be able to do the work under the consultant company name or have solicited the work whilst representing and carrying out work for the consultant company.