Giant tie in query

[richy]

Anyone else with Giant?

I made sure I confirmed I didn't agree to any of Giant's tie in terms and didn't opt out of the Employment agency regulations, but now they're claiming I have accepted them.

I still have the email I sent to them confirming that I did not opt out, and did not accept tie in periods and would be working with the same clients immediately.

Any thoughts? thx richy

[Sockpuppet]

Info on giant tie ... etc etc etc

[Lewis]

Anyone else with Giant?

I made sure I confirmed I didn't agree to any of Giant's tie in terms and didn't opt out of the Employment agency regulations, but now they're claiming I have accepted them.

I still have the email I sent to them confirming that I did not opt out, and did not accept tie in periods and would be working with the same clients immediately.

Any thoughts? thx richy

What are the saying you cannot do?

[lilfreckles]

This is why I say time and time AGAIN!!

Giant is goind down the hills and far away!!

[richy]

What are the saying you cannot do?

Leave them... and that a document they printed and posted to the agency with 12 month tie in is valid. I've not signed this document they printed... all they have is a "web agreement", but they accepted my email confirming I was not tied in at the time (no response received).

It's basically a contractual issue I guess...

[Let-Me-In]

Info on giant tie ... etc etc etc

hahaha,,,,you beat me to it!!!

[Metromaniac]

hahaha,,,,you beat me to it!!!

This is from Giant's terms:

"13. POST TERMINATION RESTRICTIONS
13.1 You hereby agree that you shall not (without the prior consent in writing of the Company) for a period of 6 months immediately following the termination of your employment with the Company, indirectly or directly or through an agency or otherwise and whether on your own behalf or in conjunction with or on behalf of any other person, firm, company or other organisation, (and whether as an employee, director, principal, agent, consultant or in any other capacity whatsoever), (a) be employed or engaged in, or (b) perform services in respect of, or (c) be otherwise concerned with the Customer for whom you were carrying out an Assignment, provided always that the provisions of this clause 13.1 shall apply only in respect of Services with which you were either personally concerned or for which you were responsible whilst employed by the Company during the 12 months immediately preceding the termination of your employment."

Is it normal for an umbrella company to try to regulate the possibilities of employment?

[Let-Me-In]

I wouldn't agree to that clause.....

[Lewis]

This is from Giant's terms:

"13. POST TERMINATION RESTRICTIONS
13.1 You hereby agree that you shall not (without the prior consent in writing of the Company) for a period of 6 months immediately following the termination of your employment with the Company, indirectly or directly or through an agency or otherwise and whether on your own behalf or in conjunction with or on behalf of any other person, firm, company or other organisation, (and whether as an employee, director, principal, agent, consultant or in any other capacity whatsoever), (a) be employed or engaged in, or (b) perform services in respect of, or (c) be otherwise concerned with the Customer for whom you were carrying out an Assignment, provided always that the provisions of this clause 13.1 shall apply only in respect of Services with which you were either personally concerned or for which you were responsible whilst employed by the Company during the 12 months immediately preceding the termination of your employment."

Is it normal for an umbrella company to try to regulate the possibilities of employment?

I can understand an agency having a tie-in but not giant. Is this new? Loads of people left powerhouse around April with no issues.

[richy]

I can understand an agency having a tie-in but not giant. Is this new? Loads of people left powerhouse around April with no issues.

the issue came up because the contractor employed by giant wanted to work direct for the end-client. and agency was "going after" giant, so giant was "going after" said employee trying to escape and work direct at the client.. with all the "acrimony" designed to worry the contractor and the end-client into not cutting out the agency from the equation. If all that makes sense...!?