6 months

[alkanet]

Hi all,

I've just finished my first contract here in UK, and now I have the chance to work again at the end client but with a different agency, the point is that I can't do it because I've been told that I must wait for a period of 6 months.

If I leave the job I find this clause fairly reasonable, but it seems to me a bit abusive if has been the end client who has decided not extend the contract.

Is it the above legal?

Regards

[captainham]

If that's what the original contract says then yes it's legal. The original agency would have to sue you if they really had a problem with you going back to the end client via a different agency, which they're probably unlikely to do, but if you speak with them and explain the situation you might be able to come to an agreement that doesn't leave a bad taste for either of you.

[BlasterBates]

The clause in the contract is to prevent you switching agencies on the same contract. This isn't the case. This means the agency won't be checking up on you. I don't see how the agent would find out, i.e. he won't be spying on you as he would if he suspected you were trying it on. The agent is hardly likely to find out by accident and if he did he probably wouldn't be bothered.

[Scrag Meister]

Why do you have to change agent, can you not get the current agency to manage to contract.

Or is your current agent not working with the client any more?

If you have been offered the role, get the client to go through the existing agent.

[captainham]

The clause in the contract is to prevent you switching agencies on the same contract

Not necessarily true. It depends on what the contract states of course but it most likely says something like "You agree not to provide services to the end client for 6 months following the assignment's conclusion without first seeking the agent's consent".

If a handcuff clause was based on individual contracts only, the clause would be meaningless most of the time.

[BlasterBates]

Yes that's true but it's purpose is to stop you renaging on your contract in the same project. The point is the agency won't be checking on it, and if he isn't checking he won't find out.

If the client wants to renew but you don't the agency may well check up on you, i.e. try and ring you up at the client site. Obviously if the client terminated you are "done and dusted".

[northernladuk]

The clause in the contract is to prevent you switching agencies on the same contract. This isn't the case. This means the agency won't be checking up on you. I don't see how the agent would find out, i.e. he won't be spying on you as he would if he suspected you were trying it on. The agent is hardly likely to find out by accident and if he did he probably wouldn't be bothered.

There are some massive assumptions here. The agency won't be checking up on you?? We don't know how many people agency A has on site and it is highly unlikely it will be just the OP. I would say there is a pretty high chance of the old agent finding out and 'hoping you don't get caught' is a very dangerous way to run the contract.

OP hasn't made it clear about the work he is doing which is pretty key I admit but still.

I think he would be very bothered. You put me right on the last thread about this and the agent was witholding payment where you quite rightly pointed out he wasn't due it. In this case it could be (with the very limited info given) the agent has him bang to rights (barring the obvious opt in/out situation).

If agent A does have rights it could cause a tulipstorm with client who drops you to avoid the problems, sue the OP and all sorts. I don't think it is to be taken lightly IMO.

[northernladuk]

Not necessarily true. It depends on what the contract states of course but it most likely says something like "You agree not to provide services to the end client for 6 months following the assignment's conclusion without first seeking the agent's consent".

If a handcuff clause was based on individual contracts only, the clause would be meaningless most of the time.

I haven't seen a handcuff clause like this though. None of mine mentioned assignments conclusion and wouldn't make sense for an agent to put this in. He would have it worded much more losely than this to protect his revenue stream and stop this happening surely?

[BlasterBates]

There are some massive assumptions here. The agency won't be checking up on you?? We don't know how many people agency A has on site and it is highly unlikely it will be just the OP. I would say there is a pretty high chance of the old agent finding out and 'hoping you don't get caught' is a very dangerous way to run the contract.

I think he would be very bothered. You put me right on the last thread about this and the agent was witholding payment where you quite rightly pointed out he wasn't due it. In this case it sounds like the agent has him bang to rights (barring the obvious opt in/out situation).

If agent A does have rights it could cause a tulipstorm with client who drops you to avoid the problems, sue the OP and all sorts. I don't think it is to be taken lightly IMO.

There is an anti-competiion issue here in that if the agency is not renewing your contract I'm not sure legally whether they can prevent you working. In other words in the case where the agency has terminated the contract it isn't absolutely clear whether they could enforce that clause. It's quite different if you abuse your current relationship. This appears to me a case whereby the contractor is not abusing his contact but is merely going through an agency who has a potential contract in an entirely different department.

But why would an agency chase up a contactor they terminated ? I just don't see they'd be interested. Suing someone isn't something you just do, and I assume the final payment would have been paid anyway.

My view is that if there is no alternative you might as well go ahead, and I wouldn't offer any compensation, you can always do that if and when they find out or contact a lawyer.

At the end of the day X is better than 0 (the current alternative) even if C might end up being paid in some compensation, and if you keep your head down and/or get a good lawyer you won't have to pay C.

[captainham]

I haven't seen a handcuff clause like this though. None of mine mentioned assignments conclusion and wouldn't make sense for an agent to put this in. He would have it worded much more losely than this to protect his revenue stream and stop this happening surely?

I copied that clause from my own.

In fact, it's worse than that, as this wasn't even from the contract, it was from the NDA that I had to sign before they'd even submit my CV to the end client (I edited the clause to remove the additional part about "if application is unsuccessful").

Yes yes I know, but I was a first-timer looking for that initial contract so anything went at that stage, right or wrong!