Can an Agency stop me working direct for a clients client??

[noobianz]

Hi Guys,

Great forum, I've lost count of the amount of threads I've read while deciding if I should contract or not.

I work for ClientA via AgencyA. ClientA have me working on a project for one of thier clients, lets call them ClientB. ClientB want me to switch over to their preferred working structure and ClientA have agreed, I would not be working direct for clientB I would be working through an agency. My question is can AgencyA stop me from working for ClientB or can the force me to work for ClientB though them. This is the restriction clause in my current contract with AgencyA is listed below. Any thoughts insight on this would be much appreciated.

The Company agrees that it shall not and shall procure that the Consultant shall not, for a period of 6 months after the termination of this Agreement (for whatever reason) whether on its or
their own account or on behalf of or in conjunction with any person, firm, company or other organisation whatsoever directly or indirectly solicit or accept the business of any client or
customer of AgencyA (including the ClientA) of which the Company or the Consultant has hadpersonal knowledge or with whom the Company or the Consultant has had personal dealings,
always provided that nothing in this Clause shall prevent the solicitation or acceptance of the business of any customer or client which is not in competition with AgencyA.

Nb

[northernladuk]

Did you Opt in or opt out? If you've picked the wrong one and then probably yes they can. They will probably have a poaching clause in the upper contract.

The key here is if the agency can prove loss by you moving in to the different structure. If the agency refuse will you continue on the structure you are on? If so that would suggest the agenct will lose out with the move and the handcuff will stand.

If you role has evaporated completely and this is a new role the agent can't make money out of then he can't prove loss but it doesn't look like that to me. Looks like a pretty standard poaching job.

Either way, whatever the legal situation is the agent can be belligerent and cause so much trouble the client bins you and gets their own contractor in.

If Client A and B want you then IMO it's up to them to negotiate with the Agency. They could strong arm them in to giving up or they could buy you out of the handcuff.

[malvolio]

Did you Opt in or opt out? If you've picked the wrong one and then probably yes they can. They will probably have a poaching clause in the upper contract.

The key here is if the agency can prove loss by you moving in to the different structure. If the agency refuse will you continue on the structure you are on? If so that would suggest the agenct will lose out with the move and the handcuff will stand.

If you role has evaporated completely and this is a new role the agent can't make money out of then he can't prove loss but it doesn't look like that to me. Looks like a pretty standard poaching job.

Either way, whatever the legal situation is the agent can be belligerent and cause so much trouble the client bins you and gets their own contractor in.

If Client A and B want you then IMO it's up to them to negotiate with the Agency. They could strong arm them in to giving up or they could buy you out of the handcuff.

Ignore the opt in thing, chances are you are in anyway. Even if you're in there's a waiting period to overcome.

However, NLUK is right about asking the client to do the negotiations. they have the supply contract with the agencies and a lot more negotiating power than you do. Let them sort it out (or not, which is equally likely since all three will risk losing money) and keep your head down.

[jonnyboy]

I was working at a Public Sector company once and a contractor left after finishing his contract, only to return 8 months later working directly with the client. The original contract had a 12 month ban in place, very similar to the wording of your contract clause. After 3 or 4 months, the original agency found out (they always do) and sent a "finders placement fee" to the client of £20,000.

As advised, the clause is there to protect the agency from them doing all the hard work (meh) to place the contractor and then the contractor doing the dirty and working for them directly. I generally always ask for the clause to be amended to remove any reference of "client of client" and so forth - in some areas of work (NHS for instance) if you are working for a managing body (a CSU or CCG for instance) a client of a client could mean every NHS organisation in the south east of England - which kills any future work for the period of the cool off. Just something to look out for in future contracts.

As for this one, as advised, let the clients sort it out with the agents, and try not not to get involved in the bun fight that will happen.

[sal]

If Client A and B want you then IMO it's up to them to negotiate with the Agency. They could strong arm them in to giving up or they could buy you out of the handcuff.

^This, fully disclose the situation with the Clients and let them sort it out

[Lance]

........of any client or
customer of AgencyA (including the ClientA) of which the Company or the Consultant has hadpersonal knowledge or with whom the Company or the Consultant has had personal dealings,

This bit has no mention of customers of client A. So I'd say you're in the clear. the bit in brackets implies ClientA is simply a customer of AgencyA.
So I'd say you're free to do what you want.

But as NLUK says.... Best not to p*ss on anyone's chips and get clientB to negotiate it for you.

IANAL

[SueEllen]

Hi Guys,

Great forum, I've lost count of the amount of threads I've read while deciding if I should contract or not.

I work for ClientA via AgencyA. ClientA have me working on a project for one of thier clients, lets call them ClientB. ClientB want me to switch over to their preferred working structure and ClientA have agreed, I would not be working direct for clientB I would be working through an agency. My question is can AgencyA stop me from working for ClientB or can the force me to work for ClientB though them. This is the restriction clause in my current contract with AgencyA is listed below. Any thoughts insight on this would be much appreciated.

It depends.

If the original client is someone like BT or HMRC the clause isn't enforceable as everyone in the UK is a client of theirs - I've actually had a couple of contracts where this part of the clause was missing due to who the client was.

Either way get the clients to sort it out for you, as clients are clued up and know they can tell the agency to go away. I've seen it happen a few times.

[noobianz]

If Client A and B want you then IMO it's up to them to negotiate with the Agency. They could strong arm them in to giving up or they could buy you out of the handcuff.

ClientA have agreed,confirmed they have no issue with me working for clientB via another agency, ( Taking them out of the equation, they are only in the picture because their on-boarding process is quicker and they needed someone ASAP). The intention was always for me to move over to the origianal structure.

[noobianz]

It depends.

If the original client is someone like BT or HMRC the clause isn't enforceable as everyone in the UK is a client of theirs - I've actually had a couple of contracts where this part of the clause was missing due to who the client was.

Either way get the clients to sort it out for you, as clients are clued up and know they can tell the agency to go away. I've seen it happen a few times.

Thanks, that would apply.