Recruiter restriction

[northernladuk]

Useful link. Good to know when negotiating.

Found that one doing a quick search but I remember looking in to it in more depth on another question like this awhile ago and reading some of the legal boards I seem to think that most generic handcuffs were near on useless legally. They tend to be honoured as people just don't know or weren't willing to push it.

[Antman]

Contractor doctor: are restrictive contract clauses enforceable?

Useful link. Good to know when negotiating.

[northernladuk]

I went back to an old client direct, the original handcuff said 12 months, I went back after 7.

The key was the end-client, they wanted me and they weren't that bothered about the agency (who were small) and they proposed going direct.

I used to think 12 months was unenforceable due to some basic right to work but that seems not to be the case. It can very easily fall in to the 'unreasonable' area which will mean it is most definitely unenforceable. It has to be very specific so it isn't just a blanket catch all. That alone isn't very good and the added 12 months just makes it rubbish. Devil is in the details but anything more than 6 months needs to be a very good clause else it's worthless..

Contractor doctor: are restrictive contract clauses enforceable?

[Antman]

I went back to an old client direct, the original handcuff said 12 months, I went back after 7.

The key was the end-client, they wanted me and they weren't that bothered about the agency (who were small) and they proposed going direct.

[northernladuk]

Problem is the reality isn't going to match the contract. There will be handbags in front of the client which is likely to end up with the client dropping you to avoid the legal hassle. You could be lucky that there is an understanding between client and agent(s) and no one wants to rock the boat but in my experience clients want nothing to do with warring agents and the contractor stuck in the middle.

TF's comment about 'registered' is a very important point but even if you could prove you are contractually in the clear the agents will quite happily cut their own nose off at your expense.

IMO I would tread extremely carefully and be fully prepared to end up with nothing.

[TheFaQQer]

Am I right in thinking that this clause allows me to walk away from one recruiter and return to the same client with another (that I've registered with)?

"the Consultancy shall not for a period of six months following the termination of the Assignment supply its services directly, or through any other person, firm or company, to any Client or End-Client for whom it has carried out the Assignment at any time during the previous six months (save in the case of
supply through an employment business or recruitment consultancy with whom the Consultancy was also registered at the date of commencement of the Assignment)."

That's how I would interpret it - if you were already registered with another EB (define "registered"!), then you can go to this client or end-client.

[Wanderer]

Maybe. I've switched agencies before but only when the client was complicit in the deal.

It depends on the client really because generally they are the ones who will make the decision to play ball or not and it's most likely them that the agent will come after.

Also read the sticky on why you shouldn't sign the opt out.

[dane606]

Am I right in thinking that this clause allows me to walk away from one recruiter and return to the same client with another (that I've registered with)?

"the Consultancy shall not for a period of six months following the termination of the Assignment supply its services directly, or through any other person, firm or company, to any Client or End-Client for whom it has carried out the Assignment at any time during the previous six months (save in the case of
supply through an employment business or recruitment consultancy with whom the Consultancy was also registered at the date of commencement of the Assignment)."