temp to perm fees

[tarcil]

Hi everyone,

I am expecting an offer for a permanent position in the company I am currently contracting.
I just had a go at my current contract with the agency (for my temp contract) and it says the below:

The Supplier shall and shall procure that the Representative shall
(a) not during the Contract Term or thereafter for a period equivalent to
the period of this agreement or, where there has been more than one
engagement between the Supplier and Agency within the last two
years, for the total period of all engagements within the last two years
with the relevant Hirer or End User (but not being less than 6 months
nor more than 12 months) either directly or indirectly (whether under
a contract of services or for services or through any third party)
provide any services to the Hirer or End User in any capacity except
by contract through the Agency unless the Supplier shall first have
paid to the Agency a fee of 20% of the total remuneration including
the value of benefits attributed by the HM Revenue & Customs
agreed to be paid or provided by the Hirer or End User for the relevant
period of provision of such services (but not exceeding 12 months)
plus VAT

Supplier is my limited company
Representative is me
End user is the company I am working for

Is this clause enforceable? I have read that there are protection for a temp-to-fees to be paid by the hirer (https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles...t-agency-rules) but can not find anything related to the supplier.

I would really appreciate your advice,
Tarcil

[SueEllen]

Not if you accept a permanent position.

The client has to fork out fees to the agency to pay for you being taken on permanently.

[BlasterBates]

A permanent position isn't taking any business from the agency, so the handcuff clause doesn't apply. It only applies to contract positions. There may be some clause in the contract between the agency and the client though, but nothing you have to worry about.

[tarcil]

@SueEllen @BlasterBates Many thanks for your reply.

However, this clause does say that this also apply in the case of a contract of services, which is the definition of a permanent job (in opposition to a contract for services): "either directly or indirectly (whether under
a contract of services or for services or through any third party).

[SueEllen]

@SueEllen @BlasterBates Many thanks for your reply.

However, this clause does say that this also apply in the case of a contract of services, which is the definition of a permanent job (in opposition to a contract for services): "either directly or indirectly (whether under
a contract of services or for services or through any third party).

Nope.

Agents cannot charge permanent job seekers fees. They can charge the employer though.

[BlasterBates]

@SueEllen @BlasterBates Many thanks for your reply.

However, this clause does say that this also apply in the case of a contract of services, which is the definition of a permanent job (in opposition to a contract for services): "either directly or indirectly (whether under
a contract of services or for services or through any third party).

It does not say permanent position, and in any case that wouldn't be legal if it did.

What they mean is you can't work through any other third party agency directly or or indirectly through an agency that goes through another agency.

The handcuff clause is to protect the legitimate business of the client. You are not competing against the agency if you work permanently for the client, because that is not a contract position for which the agency can potentially provide a service.

[SueEllen]

And there endeth the thread

[northernladyuk]

And if you're still worried, extract any funds from YourCo and close it down.