Are you opted out or opted in?

[malvolio]

In my opinion "introduced" in this case means introduced into the workforce (ie starting work) rather than introduced as in being sent for interview.

Boo

Sadly that's not what the law says. The critical point is when the client knows who you are, which in our world is the interview stage, practically speaking. This is different to the girly from Office Angels., who simply is told to turn up on a Monday. It's also a fairly critical difference between freelance contractor and ageny temps, a difference that will become increasingly important.

[Wanderer]

"I work in Germany where such nonsense isn't asked"

Working direct.

This poll is for contractors currently working on a contract formed under English law with an employment business which is governed by The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003.

Sorry if you guys feel left out, but I don't think you are missing much. Next time I'll put in a tick box for "Not Applicable" just for you.

[dynamicsaxcontractor]

This poll is for contractors currently working on a contract formed under English law with an employment business which is governed by The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003.

Sorry if you guys feel left out, but I don't think you are missing much. Next time I'll put in a tick box for "Not Applicable" just for you.

Thanks, I feel much better now.

[SueEllen]

In my opinion "introduced" in this case means introduced into the workforce (ie starting work) rather than introduced as in being sent for interview.

Boo

Firstly the law makes no difference between freelancers or temps.

Secondly providing services through a limited company I get told the entire scope of the project when I go to meet the client for an "interview". There as when I was permanent I just got told what the company does and not what my actual job role was.

So saying that being sent for an interview means that you haven't been introduced is strictly correct.

[malvolio]

Firstly the law makes no difference between freelancers or temps.

Secondly providing services through a limited company I get told the entire scope of the project when I go to meet the client for an "interview". There as when I was permanent I just got told what the company does and not what my actual job role was.

So saying that being sent for an interview means that you haven't been introduced is strictly correct.

Is this an example of feminine logic or am I missing something?

The actual relevant wording is

shall not apply where a work-seeker which is a company, and the person who is or would be supplied by that work-seeker to carry out the work, agree that they should not apply, and give notice of that agreement to an employment business or agency, provided that such notice is given before the introduction or supply of the work-seeker or the person who would be supplied by the work-seeker to do the work, to the hirer.

but what causes the confusion is that "Introduction" is not defined. If we assume its normal meaning of "Hi, this is Malvolio" then that is making it the interview stage. If, however, you use the other rather mrore archaic meaning of "an act of inserting something" (oo err missus) then it might be taken to be the day you start work. Most people believe the former is the intended meaning of "introduction".

But it also says "or supply" which is the bit hte agencies focus on and that blows the whole thing wide open again...

So a typical piece of ill thought out NL bollocks then. We won't get a real answer until someone is dumb enough to raise it in court.

[SueEllen]

Is this an example of feminine logic or am I missing something?

Sorry grammatical error - should have said "isn't".

I had to take part in a telephone meeting immediately after I posted.

[malvolio]

Sorry grammatical error - should have said "isn't".

I had to take part in a telephone meeting immediately after I posted.

Damned clients - always getting in the way of the real work.

[Boo]

Sadly that's not what the law says. The critical point is when the client knows who you are

I believe you are wrong.

The regs are available online here. The relevant extract is as follows

"(9) Subject to paragraph (12), paragraphs (1) - (8) shall not apply where a work-seeker which is a company, and the person who is or would be supplied by that work-seeker to carry out the work, agree that they should not apply, and give notice of that agreement to an employment business or agency, provided that such notice is given before the introduction or supply of the work-seeker or the person who would be supplied by the work-seeker to do the work, to the hirer."

There is a gloss on the regs here. The relevant extract from that (taken in another context) is

"The Regulations do not define an introduction but for the proper operation of this regulation, it is advisable to treat the date on which the work-seeker actually becomes employed or engaged by the hirer as the date from which the three month period should be measured"

As stated in the guidance notes, there is no explicit definition within the regs as to what introduction means in that context. This allows any court testing this to use their own definition, and it seems to me to be crystal clear what it will mean in practice : Introduction of the Consultant into the Client's Workforce.

Any other interpretation is just stupid IMHO.

Boo

[SueEllen]

I believe you are wrong.

Boo are you going to argue with the learned persons I use to review my contracts?

Go ahead.

Though personally I've learnt don't argue with solicitors or barristers.

[Boo]

Boo are you going to argue with the learned persons I use to review my contracts?

You have never seen a written legal opinion, from a qualified solicitor, as to the meaning of the word "introduction" in that paragraph of the agency regs.

So what's your point ?

Boo