Restriction Agreement

[northernladuk]

My concern is that given how it is worded, if I fail the interviews for this role, then this effectively precludes me from applying for anything at this client for the next 6 months.

Does it? Where does it say that?

Also if, for example, I joined another consultancy (after being rejected by these guys), then I cannot work on this site through that other consultancy. So this is not "poaching" as in this scenario, I would not have been working there. I can perfectly understand this clause if I had been selected and this was part of the contract agreement, but not at this stage.

Is there anything in the clause that stops you doing the above? Where does it say that?

Basically, "Can I please put you forward for a potential role on the understanding that even if you don't get selected, then you are barred from applying to this client for any other roles through anyone else or directly for 6 months."

Where does it say that?

[Jagoico]

And I don't believe they have exclusivity with the client. The client is a Tier 1 bank.

[Jagoico]

Like a red rag to a bull that



Question is.. Do you intend to do this?

I think you are confusing the types of clauses. This is an anti-poaching statement, not a restriction of trade/handcuff one. As long as you don't poach as per the agreement I can't see anything in there that mentions you applying for work though other agents, that is unless that is mentioned elsewhere. This appears to be the agent going a bit over the top to stop other agents nicking their work. I guess this type of stuff was going to start happening at some point in time with them all stabbing each other in the back all the time.

Seems pretty harsh for you to sign this first and I don't think we've seen this on the forums before. As long as you've read it and understood it I can't see why you shouldn't sign it. Emphasis is on understood it. We can't see the whole thing and know nothing else about the situation so can't say for sure there is something else that would stop you. On the face of it you look good to go.

Up to you if you feel the role is good enough to jump through the hoops at the end of the day. Some people will come on and say sod that I aint doing it but that isn't really advice you want to hear when you are sat on the bench with no income.

My concern is that given how it is worded, if I fail the interviews for this role, then this effectively precludes me from applying for anything at this client for the next 6 months. Also if, for example, I joined another consultancy (after being rejected by these guys), then I cannot work on this site through that other consultancy. So this is not "poaching" as in this scenario, I would not have been working there. I can perfectly understand this clause if I had been selected and this was part of the contract agreement, but not at this stage.

Basically, "Can I please put you forward for a potential role on the understanding that even if you don't get selected, then you are barred from applying to this client for any other roles through anyone else or directly for 6 months."

[Jagoico]

Like a red rag to a bull that



Question is.. Do you intend to do this?

I think you are confusing the types of clauses. This is an anti-poaching statement, not a restriction of trade/handcuff one. As long as you don't poach as per the agreement I can't see anything in there that mentions you applying for work though other agents, that is unless that is mentioned elsewhere. This appears to be the agent going a bit over the top to stop other agents nicking their work. I guess this type of stuff was going to start happening at some point in time with them all stabbing each other in the back all the time.

Seems pretty harsh for you to sign this first and I don't think we've seen this on the forums before. As long as you've read it and understood it I can't see why you shouldn't sign it. Emphasis is on understood it. We can't see the whole thing and know nothing else about the situation so can't say for sure there is something else that would stop you. On the face of it you look good to go.

Up to you if you feel the role is good enough to jump through the hoops at the end of the day. Some people will come on and say sod that I aint doing it but that isn't really advice you want to hear when you are sat on the bench with no income.

My concern is that given how it is worded, if I fail the interviews for this role, then this effectively precludes me from applying for anything at this client for the next 6 months. Also if, for example, I joined another consultancy (after being rejected by these guys), then I cannot work on this site through that other consultancy. So this is not "poaching" as in this scenario, I would not have been working there. I can perfectly understand this clause if I had been selected and this was part of the contract agreement, but not at this stage.

Basically, "Can I please put you forward for a potential role on the understanding that even if you don't get selected, then you are barred from applying to this client for any other roles through anyone else or directly for 6 months."

[northernladuk]

Hi - this is my first post, so please be gentle and apologies if this is a daft question!

Like a red rag to a bull that

I had a call from a company who is on a PSL with a bank and seems to be a halfway house between an "recruitment agent"/"body shop" and a "consultancy". Basically they want to put me forward for potential roles at a client bank. It's speculative and something may come of it or something may not. However, they need me to sign a Restriction agreement. I was fine with this until I read the following clauses that say that for a period of 6 months after termination

“...the Contractor shall not either alone or jointly with or as agent of any other person, firm, company or organisation directly or indirectly, and shall procure that any of its directors, employees, subcontractors, or agents shall not, in competition with xxxx, solicit or entice away or endeavour to solicit or entice away from Xxxx the custom of any person or company who or which was a client of, potential client of or did business with xxxx and to which the Contractor was introduced through Xxxx; ... solicit, entice away from, employ or engage or endeavour to solicit, entice away from, employ or engage any person who was a director or senior employee of any company which was a client of, potential client of, did business with or was introduced to them by the other Party; nor...solicit, entice away from, employ or engage or endeavour to solicit, entice away from, employ or engage any person who was a director or senior employee of the other Party, except with that Party’s prior consent...”
At first glance, this looks like a fairly reasonable anti-poaching clause that I would expect in a contract where a role has been secured, but given where we are in the discussions, if nothing comes of the role (i.e., the client doesn’t want me for that particular role), then does that mean this prevents me from applying for any other roles at that same client either directly or other agencies/consultancies?"

Termination is deemed to be the date upon which the parties cease discussions regardless of whether we enter into an agreement for the provision of services.

TIA

Question is.. Do you intend to do this?

I think you are confusing the types of clauses. This is an anti-poaching statement, not a restriction of trade/handcuff one. As long as you don't poach as per the agreement I can't see anything in there that mentions you applying for work though other agents, that is unless that is mentioned elsewhere. This appears to be the agent going a bit over the top to stop other agents nicking their work. I guess this type of stuff was going to start happening at some point in time with them all stabbing each other in the back all the time.

Seems pretty harsh for you to sign this first and I don't think we've seen this on the forums before. As long as you've read it and understood it I can't see why you shouldn't sign it. Emphasis is on understood it. We can't see the whole thing and know nothing else about the situation so can't say for sure there is something else that would stop you. On the face of it you look good to go.

Up to you if you feel the role is good enough to jump through the hoops at the end of the day. Some people will come on and say sod that I aint doing it but that isn't really advice you want to hear when you are sat on the bench with no income.

[Lance]

If they are the only agent that can supply to the client then I can see why they could justify the clause. But then again they wouldn't need the clause if they have exclusivity.

I've not seen this before and the client probably wouldn't be too happy about it but it does appear to be restricting to only the one client.
Is it enforceable??? Perhaps as it's restricted quite tightly to the one client.

Challenge the agent and say this is not normal practise. If they don't play ball see if you can get it reduced to the role only rather than the client (and by implication 2/3 weeks rather than 6 months).

[Jagoico]

Hi - this is my first post, so please be gentle and apologies if this is a daft question!

I had a call from a company who is on a PSL with a bank and seems to be a halfway house between an "recruitment agent"/"body shop" and a "consultancy". Basically they want to put me forward for potential roles at a client bank. It's speculative and something may come of it or something may not. However, they need me to sign a Restriction agreement. I was fine with this until I read the following clauses that say that for a period of 6 months after termination

“...the Contractor shall not either alone or jointly with or as agent of any other person, firm, company or organisation directly or indirectly, and shall procure that any of its directors, employees, subcontractors, or agents shall not, in competition with xxxx, solicit or entice away or endeavour to solicit or entice away from Xxxx the custom of any person or company who or which was a client of, potential client of or did business with xxxx and to which the Contractor was introduced through Xxxx; ... solicit, entice away from, employ or engage or endeavour to solicit, entice away from, employ or engage any person who was a director or senior employee of any company which was a client of, potential client of, did business with or was introduced to them by the other Party; nor...solicit, entice away from, employ or engage or endeavour to solicit, entice away from, employ or engage any person who was a director or senior employee of the other Party, except with that Party’s prior consent...”
At first glance, this looks like a fairly reasonable anti-poaching clause that I would expect in a contract where a role has been secured, but given where we are in the discussions, if nothing comes of the role (i.e., the client doesn’t want me for that particular role), then does that mean this prevents me from applying for any other roles at that same client either directly or other agencies/consultancies?"

Termination is deemed to be the date upon which the parties cease discussions regardless of whether we enter into an agreement for the provision of services.

TIA