Company in admin and restarted

[whiskeyfrank]

I work for a large manufacturing business that recently went into administration, the company has been bought by a financier and they have restarted the business but with a new name and new management etc.

As a daily contractor i have been working limited company through one of the big agents, but want to get out if i can. The new owners have offered fulltime but im not keen on that. I would prefer to move agents as the one im with are taking a stupid profit.

My question is can I move agents without the current one putting massive fess on me or the new company?

Im asking as its now a new company and wondered if that made a difference.

[ASB]

Just depends on what it in your contract.

The administration and emergence from it would generally be covered by a well drafted restriction clauses. Question is whether your contract had a good one or not.

[DirtyDog]

I work for a large manufacturing business that recently went into administration, the company has been bought by a financier and they have restarted the business but with a new name and new management etc.

As a daily contractor i have been working limited company through one of the big agents, but want to get out if i can. The new owners have offered fulltime but im not keen on that. I would prefer to move agents as the one im with are taking a stupid profit.

My question is can I move agents without the current one putting massive fess on me or the new company?

Im asking as its now a new company and wondered if that made a difference.

So, who do you work for?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

If the agency has included a restriction clause in the contract that you signed with them - along the lines of "Neither the Contractor nor the Worker shall directly or indirectly supply its services within twelve months of the conclusion of any Assignment to any Client, subsidiary or third party to whom the Worker has been assigned by the Client, in respect of which an Assignment has been undertaken" - then I think the agency would have a good case for breach of contract. This type of clause doesn't seem to be enforced very often but you would be running a risk.

[whiskeyfrank]

No one major its a 200 person sme assembly company in herts.

My contract has a restriction clause which I will go through again. The agent (who is a pain) has told me that if i swap to the new agent they will charge the company and me. They say they will charge them a years worth of profit, i like the business and dont want to see that happen. It may also end up in me losing my contract.

Now..

The company have said that they will have to terminate my contact and replace me with someone cheaper (agency margin, not my rate) if the agent wont let me move, either way im stumped. If they let me go I could start again at the business with a much lower charge out rate. If i cant move i cant work for them for 12 months so the company has no choice.

I have reduced my rate twice already, but the agent has refused to and they dont care they are too big to be bothered.

In effect if i cant move they will replace me, which seems stupid. This is happening real time BTW, just been told this.

[northernladuk]

The name/ownership change probably won't affect anything if they decide to take this far enough. They could life the corporate veil and prove it is the same entity in principle so agreements still stand.

12 months is generally unenforceable though. 6 months maybe but it is against some human right to restrict trade for that length of time, particularly when you are doing short term contracts and there is no guarantee you will be needed for that length of time.

I have been in a bun fight between agents and in my case the client sorted out. They obviously have leverage as they can dump the old agent altogether if they don't play ball. Not all clients will be so willing to get involved but it appears to be in their best interests to keep you.

What is your Opt in/out status?

[Craig at Nixon Williams]

I assume that you have opted out? If so, was the opt-out done in writing before you were introduced to your client?

If you are not opted out, or you opted out after you were introduced to the client then the maximum length of a restrictive covenant is much less than 12 months!

Craig

[northernladuk]

I assume that you have opted out? If so, was the opt-out done in writing before you were introduced to your client?

If you are not opted out, or you opted out after you were introduced to the client then the maximum length of a restrictive covenant is much less than 12 months!

Craig

^This which is why I enquired the status. Good luck trying to make it stick though. I am not aware of any case law around Opt in/out status yet. Could do with some to clarify the situation once and for all though.

[whiskeyfrank]

opted out.

The issue is they agent has been caught charging too much so know they are going to be dropped and replaced with one i have worked with before and to be honest were very good, in know that's unusual!

Now they know they will be dropped they dont care and will go all out to charge a fee for me.

[Craig at Nixon Williams]

If you're opted out, was it done properly?

12 months is generally unenforceable though. 6 months maybe but it is against some human right to restrict trade for that length of time, particularly when you are doing short term contracts and there is no guarantee you will be needed for that length of time.

I'm no legal eagle but I'd agree with what NLUK has said here, a 12 month clause could easily be seen as a restraint of trade and therefore rendered unenforceable. If the agent is determined to go to town on this though, do you (or your client) really have the inclination to go through this?

It would be interesting to see the view of other contractors who have dealt with difficult agencies in the past...

Craig