Restrictive Covenant

[Wanderer]

Tell agency A to foxtrot oscar.

Yep. If the agency has a problem then they can go and fight it out with the other agency and/or the client. Most likely some deal has been struck and they are trying to pull the wool over the contractor's eyes.

If it comes to it, your opening shot with the solicitors letter would be that the opt out wasn't done at the right time so isn't valid.

[ruasonid]

Even if you had opted in, what if the client has a contract with the agency which contains a restrictive covenant? I've seen client/agency contracts with 12 month clauses.

[chineseJohn]

Thanks for your comments. I may seek some legal advice on this.

I've done some digging around,an annoucement will take place around Sept/Oct time. I will let you know what happens.

[Darksider]

You should technically be fine.

This has happened to me before and got away with it due to name change of the two trusts. It's a situation completely out of your control, so I would just keep quiet about it and see how it plays out. Trusts joining together usually take ages anyway. I would be more concerned with the two trusts joining that they end contracts during their restructure, rather than handcuff clauses.

[Wanderer]

Even if you had opted in, what if the client has a contract with the agency which contains a restrictive covenant? I've seen client/agency contracts with 12 month clauses.

The law regulates the agency in ALL of their business dealings so if the worker is smart enough to not opt out then the restrictive covenant is NOT enforceable against the worker OR against the end client.

This doesn't stop the agency from trying to bulltulip the client (or worker for that matter) into thinking that it is and indeed bluff and bluster like this is their stock in trade.