Reply to: 6 months

[captainham]

I once had to take some legal advice around this clause in a contract. The advice was as long as you have finished your current contract with Agency A this will be very difficult to uphold. The argument was that Agency A have no right to prevent you from earning a living. They did advise to give it an invoicing cycle before starting the new contract with Agency B.

Interesting and also sounds perfectly reasonable. I would advise the OP to seek legal advice too; a couple of hundred quid (?) will possibly (probably?) end the same way in which case he is free to take up the new contract with the new agency.

[porrker]

Hi all,

I've just finished my first contract here in UK, and now I have the chance to work again at the end client but with a different agency, the point is that I can't do it because I've been told that I must wait for a period of 6 months.

If I leave the job I find this clause fairly reasonable, but it seems to me a bit abusive if has been the end client who has decided not extend the contract.

Is it the above legal?

Regards

I once had to take some legal advice around this clause in a contract. The advice was as long as you have finished your current contract with Agency A this will be very difficult to uphold. The argument was that Agency A have no right to prevent you from earning a living. They did advise to give it an invoicing cycle before starting the new contract with Agency B.

[ASB]

Another thought,

The agency almost certainly has a restraint clause in their contract with the end client.

By offering you via a different agency then the client is almost certainly in breach of this. Is the agent actually aware you have an offer??

If they are it does rather suggest that the client has told the agency to do one, and the agency has. If this is the case then the agency have already shown their hand in that they don't want to jeopardise any ongoing relationship with the client and they will bow to pressure.

[SarahL2012]

Thanks for your replies.

I have already tried to apply for this end client with other agencies, but they (new agencies) have told me that I need an email from my previous agency saying I allow to 'x' to apply jobs with the agency 'y', so I guess they (end client) check in some way if I've been working for them in this period of time.

I've tried also to get in touch with my agency for asking them a short letter which allow me to work with other agencies, but they answered to me with a taxative NO, you must wait for 6 months.

So I don't know what to do, please any help would be much appreciated.

Can you work directly for the client and miss out the agencies altogether?

[ASB]

Hi,

No the end client will not go through with the agency.
Yes in the future I'll read carefully the terms.

I have my doubts about that clause being upheld in court. The question is whether the agency will go that far and whether you will risk it.

Also if you were opted in - i.e. you hadn't specifically opted out of the agency regs BEFORE you were introduced to the client then this might improve your negotiating position

[Sausage Surprise]

Thanks for your replies.

I have already tried to apply for this end client with other agencies, but they (new agencies) have told me that I need an email from my previous agency saying I allow to 'x' to apply jobs with the agency 'y', so I guess they (end client) check in some way if I've been working for them in this period of time.

I've tried also to get in touch with my agency for asking them a short letter which allow me to work with other agencies, but they answered to me with a taxative NO, you must wait for 6 months.

So I don't know what to do, please any help would be much appreciated.

Set up your own agency

[alkanet]

Hi,

No the end client will not go through with the agency.
Yes in the future I'll read carefully the terms.

[SueEllen]

Thanks for your replies.

I have already tried to apply for this end client with other agencies, but they (new agencies) have told me that I need an email from my previous agency saying I allow to 'x' to apply jobs with the agency 'y', so I guess they (end client) check in some way if I've been working for them in this period of time.

I've tried also to get in touch with my agency for asking them a short letter which allow me to work with other agencies, but they answered to me with a taxative NO, you must wait for 6 months.

Will the end client go through the agency you were with before?

If not you could take the trouble to get all legal on them but personally I think it's too much hassle and you should just find another role with a different client.

I also suggest you read up about the The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations, commonly called on these forums opting-out.

I also suggest in future you get all your handcuff clauses reviewed. Some will be enforceable if tested in a court of law but many will not. It completely depends on the entire wording of the clause, it's relation to your the rest of the contract, your client and the work you do.

[northernladuk]

As I say in previous post, it's all in the wording. So in my example, it prevents any further contracts with the end client via another agency, not just the same project. It's a corker.

Yeah but as I am learning from BB wording means squat if there is no legal basis for it. What they can and can't do behind the words is what I/we don't know. What is bluster and what is legally enforceable.

Thanks for your replies.

I have already tried to apply for this end client with other agencies, but they (new agencies) have told me that I need an email from my previous agency saying I allow to 'x' to apply jobs with the agency 'y', so I guess they (end client) check in some way if I've been working for them in this period of time.

That is very interesting. This kind just be industry etiquette then. Has to be some substance to it then.

I've tried also to get in touch with my agency for asking them a short letter which allow me to work with other agencies, but they answered to me with a taxative NO, you must wait for 6 months.

So I don't know what to do, please any help would be much appreciated.

More chance of knitting fog than that one coming off I am afraid but worth a go.

The other option is getting the client/new agency to pay the old one off. I swapped from agency to MSC in a client but I know the MSC had to pay the old agent a percentage (monthly/daily I don't know) with all in the chain taking less and client having to pay a little more so it is possible but in my case it was initiated by the client who holds the purse strings.

[alkanet]

Thanks for your replies.

I have already tried to apply for this end client with other agencies, but they (new agencies) have told me that I need an email from my previous agency saying I allow to 'x' to apply jobs with the agency 'y', so I guess they (end client) check in some way if I've been working for them in this period of time.

I've tried also to get in touch with my agency for asking them a short letter which allow me to work with other agencies, but they answered to me with a taxative NO, you must wait for 6 months.

So I don't know what to do, please any help would be much appreciated.

[captainham]

Yes that's true but it's purpose is to stop you renaging on your contract in the same project. The point is the agency won't be checking on it, and if he isn't checking he won't find out.

As I say in previous post, it's all in the wording. So in my example, it prevents any further contracts with the end client via another agency, not just the same project. It's a corker.

[northernladuk]

There is an anti-competiion issue here in that if the agency is not renewing your contract I'm not sure legally whether they can prevent you working. In other words in the case where the agency has terminated the contract it isn't absolutely clear whether they could enforce that clause. It's quite different if you abuse your current relationship.

But why would an agency chase up a contactor they terminated ? I just don't see they'd be interested. Suing someone isn't something you just do, and I assume the final payment would have been paid anyway.

This is very true and after the post from you and others in the other thread I would like more direction as it isn't what I thought by a long chalk. I thought it was a first dibs thing as they introduced to the client but after reading the threads in the last couple of days that seems pretty stupid but it wouldn't seem totally unreasonable for something to protect the agents effort to place you and his revenue.

I think I have my head around it much better now but there isn't enough information in the paticular post to be able to say I think. We don't know if it is same project/group/area of the client, why a diff agent is involved i.e. Preferred Supplier has changed or another agent is just being cutthroat.

They won't chase them but it's a small world and if the agent comes to site to talk to client about opportunities and the OP walks past, casual chit chat with client or other contractors and 'oh <name> is back etc. Again, depends on OP's situation and how many contractors these agents have but the grapevine isn't something to trust IMO.

[captainham]

I haven't seen a handcuff clause like this though. None of mine mentioned assignments conclusion and wouldn't make sense for an agent to put this in. He would have it worded much more losely than this to protect his revenue stream and stop this happening surely?

I copied that clause from my own.

In fact, it's worse than that, as this wasn't even from the contract, it was from the NDA that I had to sign before they'd even submit my CV to the end client (I edited the clause to remove the additional part about "if application is unsuccessful").

Yes yes I know, but I was a first-timer looking for that initial contract so anything went at that stage, right or wrong!

[BlasterBates]

There are some massive assumptions here. The agency won't be checking up on you?? We don't know how many people agency A has on site and it is highly unlikely it will be just the OP. I would say there is a pretty high chance of the old agent finding out and 'hoping you don't get caught' is a very dangerous way to run the contract.

I think he would be very bothered. You put me right on the last thread about this and the agent was witholding payment where you quite rightly pointed out he wasn't due it. In this case it sounds like the agent has him bang to rights (barring the obvious opt in/out situation).

If agent A does have rights it could cause a tulipstorm with client who drops you to avoid the problems, sue the OP and all sorts. I don't think it is to be taken lightly IMO.

There is an anti-competiion issue here in that if the agency is not renewing your contract I'm not sure legally whether they can prevent you working. In other words in the case where the agency has terminated the contract it isn't absolutely clear whether they could enforce that clause. It's quite different if you abuse your current relationship. This appears to me a case whereby the contractor is not abusing his contact but is merely going through an agency who has a potential contract in an entirely different department.

But why would an agency chase up a contactor they terminated ? I just don't see they'd be interested. Suing someone isn't something you just do, and I assume the final payment would have been paid anyway.

My view is that if there is no alternative you might as well go ahead, and I wouldn't offer any compensation, you can always do that if and when they find out or contact a lawyer.

At the end of the day X is better than 0 (the current alternative) even if C might end up being paid in some compensation, and if you keep your head down and/or get a good lawyer you won't have to pay C.

[northernladuk]

Not necessarily true. It depends on what the contract states of course but it most likely says something like "You agree not to provide services to the end client for 6 months following the assignment's conclusion without first seeking the agent's consent".

If a handcuff clause was based on individual contracts only, the clause would be meaningless most of the time.

I haven't seen a handcuff clause like this though. None of mine mentioned assignments conclusion and wouldn't make sense for an agent to put this in. He would have it worded much more losely than this to protect his revenue stream and stop this happening surely?