Reply to: Morgan McKinley cut my rate 3 times after Microsoft made an offer

[NotAllThere]

1) Were they acting as an employment agency or an employment business?

2) If you are right, then you have been advised a number of times in this thread what to do - compile your case, find a lawyer, and sue them.

I'm really not sure what more you want people here to tell you. Go win the case, and share the details.

Yep, I think this thread has run its course.

[eek]

1. Legally speaking, most contractors deal with 'employment business' and this is the case for Morgan McKinley, though I think in general contractors refer to them as 'agency' here in the UK.

2. I am quite sure I will be going after them legally soon, and I am already going after them first through ASA. I hope to establish the case of 'false advertisement' first as that will strength my legal case.

No it won't as most of us are still trying to work out what law has been broken and what case you actually have...

[Frank Big Bird]

1) Were they acting as an employment agency or an employment business?

2) If you are right, then you have been advised a number of times in this thread what to do - compile your case, find a lawyer, and sue them.

I'm really not sure what more you want people here to tell you. Go win the case, and share the details.

1. Legally speaking, most contractors deal with 'employment business' and this is the case for Morgan McKinley, though I think in general contractors refer to them as 'agency' here in the UK.

2. I am quite sure I will be going after them legally soon, and I am already going after them first through ASA. I hope to establish the case of 'false advertisement' first as that will strength my legal case.

[GlenW]

I'm really not sure what more you want people here to tell you. Go win the case, and share the details.

It's a wind up, that's why.

[TheFaQQer]

Under Part III Section 14(1.c) and Section 15(d):

14.—(1) Subject to paragraph(7), before first providing any work-finding services to a work seeker, an agency or employment business shall obtain the agreement of the work-seeker to the terms which apply or will apply as between the agency or employment business and the work-seeker including—
(c) in the case of an employment business, the terms referred to in regulation 15,

15. In the case of an employment business, the terms to be agreed in accordance with regulation 14 shall include—
(d) either— (i) the rate of remuneration payable to the work-seeker; or (ii) the minimum rate of remuneration the employment business reasonably expects to achieve for the work-seeker;

I am just showing the key points from regulation here, and I am just showing the job-seeker part. There is another part that shows requirements for the hirer (end-client). please refer to original version for more details.

Basically the regulation says that terms and conditions should be established between agency and client and agency and job seeker first before providing any service. In my case it didn't happen that way.

1) Were they acting as an employment agency or an employment business?

2) If you are right, then you have been advised a number of times in this thread what to do - compile your case, find a lawyer, and sue them.

I'm really not sure what more you want people here to tell you. Go win the case, and share the details.

[Batcher]

Under Part III Section 14(1.c) and Section 15(d):

14.—(1) Subject to paragraph(7), before first providing any work-finding services to a work seeker, an agency or employment business shall obtain the agreement of the work-seeker to the terms which apply or will apply as between the agency or employment business and the work-seeker including—
(c) in the case of an employment business, the terms referred to in regulation 15,

15. In the case of an employment business, the terms to be agreed in accordance with regulation 14 shall include—
(d) either— (i) the rate of remuneration payable to the work-seeker; or (ii) the minimum rate of remuneration the employment business reasonably expects to achieve for the work-seeker;

I am just showing the key points from regulation here, and I am just showing the job-seeker part. There is another part that shows requirements for the hirer (end-client). please refer to original version for more details.

Basically the regulation says that terms and conditions should be established between agency and client and agency and job seeker first before providing any service. In my case it didn't happen that way.

Go get 'em Tiger!!

[Frank Big Bird]

Yes.

Under Part III Section 14(1.c) and Section 15(d):

14.—(1) Subject to paragraph(7), before first providing any work-finding services to a work seeker, an agency or employment business shall obtain the agreement of the work-seeker to the terms which apply or will apply as between the agency or employment business and the work-seeker including—
(c) in the case of an employment business, the terms referred to in regulation 15,

15. In the case of an employment business, the terms to be agreed in accordance with regulation 14 shall include—
(d) either— (i) the rate of remuneration payable to the work-seeker; or (ii) the minimum rate of remuneration the employment business reasonably expects to achieve for the work-seeker;

I am just showing the key points from regulation here, and I am just showing the job-seeker part. There is another part that shows requirements for the hirer (end-client). please refer to original version for more details.

Basically the regulation says that terms and conditions should be established between agency and client and agency and job seeker first before providing any service. In my case it didn't happen that way.

[TheFaQQer]

Is this regulation still in effect in this country?

'The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003'

Yes.

[Scruff]

You still don't get it, do you? I think that it's about time this moves to General...?

[Frank Big Bird]

Is this regulation still in effect in this country?

'The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003'

[northernladuk]

Especially when they don't see the capital letters at the start of each word.......

Or..
People just see what they want to see

I don't think capitals make much different TBH
Sometimes people put them in sometimes they don't.

Anyway...

That's not really the issue here.
Whatever his problem is it's not capitals.
I am sure he will get there.
Time will only tell...

[TestMangler]

There Are None So Blind
As Those Who Will Not See

Especially when they don't see the capital letters at the start of each word.......

[Scruff]

There Are None So Blind
As Those Who Will Not See

[BlasterBates]

It appears that your salary requirements were not properly transmitted and were above the threshold for this position. This should have been vetted prior to scheduling the interview.

Sorry for that. The recruiting company in the UK made two errors: salary requirements were not checked and wrong time. I sincerely apologize.

This sounds like a misunderstanding.

i.e. PM talks to recruiter agree on a rate, after the interview and then the contracts dept stomps all over the rate and says no way Jose.

So Microsoft are now suggesting McKinley should have verified it with the contracts dept.

Personally I would just move on. I doubt that many agents would have "vetted" the rate, they would have simply taken the PM's word.

[TheFaQQer]

What I have been asking in this forum is advice about the case: is this false advertising?

If you are after a definitive legal opinion, then you need to consult a solicitor, not a bunch of strangers on the Internet who aren't telling you what you want to hear.

is this legal under employment regulations?

What employment regulations are you referring to? If the advertisement was for a contract position, then I don't see how employment law could possibly come into it.

As a guess, I'd suggest that any judge would rule that the placement of the listing online was merely an invitation to tender, and your company was able to provide that tender. At a later date, the specifications of the tender changed, but you are expecting the advertiser to be held to that original document.

If the judge ruled that the placing of the role description was an invitation to tender, then the company placing the invitation is free to accept or reject any tenders made. They are also free to negotiate the terms of the contract and you are free to reject those.

IANAL.