Restriction clauses

[Mr.Whippy]

Yes, but they don't want / need you, do they...? Or perhaps the agency. Either way, it makes little difference.

The client has expressed a keen interest for me to stay as they didn't want me replaced. They have a contract for the IT company to supply X amount of people which is being adhered to. They have since decided they need more and would rather go to the open market for it, so I just wondered if it was doable or just potential hassle.

Unless you opted out of the agency regulations this clause is not valid or enforceable. You didn't opt out did you?

Yes I did opt out, in the usual after I'd been introduced to the client fashion.

[Wanderer]

I'm half way through a 6 month contract and my contract has a clause which states I cannot work for the IT company or their customer for 3-12 months without paying X amount to the agent.

Unless you opted out of the agency regulations this clause is not valid or enforceable. You didn't opt out did you?

[malvolio]

Well that's why I asked, because there is still a need as the client is actively recruiting for 2 more contractors outside of their contractual agreement(s) with the agent/IT company.

Yes, but they don't want / need you, do they...? Or perhaps the agency. Either way, it makes little difference.

[Mr.Whippy]

You're a contractor, hired to fill a position for as long as you're needed. Once you are no longer needed, you get moved out. That's harsh but it's reality.

Well that's why I asked, because there is still a need as the client is actively recruiting for 2 more contractors outside of their contractual agreement(s) with the agent/IT company.

[malvolio]

You're a contractor, hired to fill a position for as long as you're needed. Once you are no longer needed, you get moved out. That's harsh but it's reality. It's also not a breach of contract or anything else that would invalidate the handcuff clause. Plus, of course, there is almost certianly a rather more stringent but similar clause in the agency-client contract.

So, what do you think the answer is?

[Mr.Whippy]

Here's the situation, I'm currently contracted through an agent to an IT company, who then put me into their customer site.

I'm half way through a 6 month contract and my contract has a clause which states I cannot work for the IT company or their customer for 3-12 months without paying X amount to the agent.

If, in the situation where the IT company get the agent to terminate my contract and then replace me with one of their permanent employees, would that mean I could go direct to the customer without being in breach of the above clause because they've (IT company & agent) decided they no longer want/need my services by terminating?