Agency removed from preferred supplier list - advice needed

**swamp** · 9 March 2007, 11:26

Originally posted by pmetcalfe

Hello,

Can anyone please give me some advice on an unusual contract situation? Apologies for being a bit longwinded.

I work at a bank through an agency, who have 'preferred supplier' status conferred by the bank. I originally had a 100 day contract with the agency, and this has been extended to a one month rolling one. I've been working at the bank through the agency for over four years.

Last Wednesday 7th March, my manager told me that the bank's Supplier Management department had removed the agency's preferred supplier status. The contract between the bank and the agency was only up to 31 March, after which time it ceases and will not be renewed. I spoke to the Supplier Management department and they confirmed this.

The bank are happy for me to either contract for them directly after 31 March, or simply to leave and be replaced.

I phoned the agency to discuss this with them, they hadn't been informed by the bank and are trying to get confirmation from them of the non-renewal.

I'd like to contract directly with the bank, but am worried that the agency may attempt to prevent me from doing so without some sort of one-off payment or margin imposition. The contract I have with the agency has the usual '12 month no direct contract' clause.

Can anyone help with advice here? My thanks in advance for all helpful replies.

PM

I would contract directly with the Bank if they are happy to do so. Try not to tell the agency you are doing this otherwise they may stir up trouble, but if they do find out it will be the bank's problem not yours.

**Spacecadet** · 9 March 2007, 11:29

Originally posted by pmetcalfe

I'd like to contract directly with the bank, but am worried that the agency may attempt to prevent me from doing so without some sort of one-off payment or margin imposition. The contract I have with the agency has the usual '12 month no direct contract' clause.

This depends in your contract with the Agency and their contract with the bank. I suggest you read through it and get the bank to do the same.

The agency cannot physically stop you, they can only threaten (and follow through with) court action for breach of contract.

Why is the bank removing the preferred supplier status from the agency? Has the agency themselves breached their contract a few too many times?

How this is now played, really is down to you and the bank working as a team to get the result you both want. It may well involve a payment to the agency which the bank may be willing to make or split with you. Alternatively up your rate to help cover the extra cost to you in terms of buying yourself out.

Given that you have been there for 4 years, the agency has had a very good run. With any luck all parties can act like gentlemen and the agency can back out with dignity and allow you to go direct.

-Edit-
Or as swamp said, just don't let the agency know

**meridian** · 9 March 2007, 11:37

If you've been there for four years, then you started before the Agency regs came in. This would imply that you're Opted In, and therefore the '12-month' clause cannot be upheld.

**Not So Wise** · 9 March 2007, 11:51

As Meridian said, you were automaticlly opted in when the regs came into force thus the 12 month clause is invalid

**jh0711** · 9 March 2007, 12:49

interesting - I have spokent to a number of pimps who say that regardless of EAA regulations they have a contract with the end client and if that says you cannot work for them for a certain period after the contract ends the pimps feel this would be upheld by a court of law.

me I think not - EAA forms part of employment laws and regulations - the contract between agency and end client is not part of employment law/regualtions so if it goes to court it will be employment law v contract law

anyone wanna guess who would win?

**Back In Business** · 9 March 2007, 12:53

The one with the most expensive lawyer.

HTH

**Not So Wise** · 9 March 2007, 13:18

Law > Contract T&C's always

But it does raise the interesting question of how do the regs affect the EB to client contract

But to be 100% honest, from your comment "The bank are happy for me to either contract for them directly after 31 March, or simply to leave and be replaced." does not sound like the client really gives a damn if you go or don't as they consider you easily replaceable, as anything they do would probably involve at least some legal threats from the EB, even though these threats will most likely have no legal standing the client is most likely to consider it not worth the hassle and wave you goodbye

My recommendation is try negotiating with the EB yourself or start looking for a new contract

**Victor Meldrew** · 9 March 2007, 14:04

If you want to continue at the bank, just renew your contract direct with the bank and forget about the agency.

**rootsnall** · 9 March 2007, 14:18

You need to look at the contract between the bank and the agency, after 4 years the buy out figure should be pretty low. On a long contract I did it was down to 3 months commission to the agent. It'll still need some negotiating as somebody will have to shell out 3 months commission up front if you go down that route. If you are deemed to be 'opted in' I think the agency still has you tied up for 8 weeks, so effectivley that route would cost 8 weeks commission to buy out the agent.

Alternatively, after 4 years its time for a change !

Agency removed from preferred supplier list - advice needed