Reply to: Can my old agency sue me for working for another company within the client group?

[Andy Hallett]

In answer to the OP:

If you are Opted Out = Yes
If you are not = No

[GillsMan]

Its not just the agency its the clients that wont use you I lost a good gig in the summer because I worked for the client for a week through an angency. I had filled in the forms to work direct as a supplier then they went quiet on me, eventually they got back to me and said HR wouldnt let her use me as I had worked for them via there preferred supplier, and that was effectively the end of that. I was contracting for an NHS Trust, a guy finished his role (after an extended period) and moved over to our role which was through another agency. He had to leave site after 2 days as the client got wind of it and said they couldnt use him due to being previously with another agency.
Mate of mine just left a 3 month role with a major energy provider, another agency was advertising the same role he applied and was told by the agent they couldnt use him for 9 months. So what do you do ? Even though his previous agency was not punting the job. you cant just throw a tantrum and make them put you forwards/take you on. All part and parcel of me hating agencies if they aint screwing you on the rate, they are screwing you on the job.

I do hope your role does not involve writing.

[Yonmons]

Its not just the agency its the clients that wont use you I lost a good gig in the summer because I worked for the client for a week through an angency. I had filled in the forms to work direct as a supplier then they went quiet on me, eventually they got back to me and said HR wouldnt let her use me as I had worked for them via there preferred supplier, and that was effectively the end of that. I was contracting for an NHS Trust, a guy finished his role (after an extended period) and moved over to our role which was through another agency. He had to leave site after 2 days as the client got wind of it and said they couldnt use him due to being previously with another agency.
Mate of mine just left a 3 month role with a major energy provider, another agency was advertising the same role he applied and was told by the agent they couldnt use him for 9 months. So what do you do ? Even though his previous agency was not punting the job. you cant just throw a tantrum and make them put you forwards/take you on. All part and parcel of me hating agencies if they aint screwing you on the rate, they are screwing you on the job.

[eek]

Nope because they can say 'Yeah, will show you in court when we show the judge how you broke a contract you willingly signed.'

Who blinks first? The OP seems to be on the verge of doing so seeing as he's asking the question.

Of course you can stand by an hope they dont follow through with their threat but at the same time, that may worry the OP more.

But that assumes the agency wishes to go to court. 99% of the time threats that it will go to court are just that threats

[BolshieBastard]

No, what you do is say "OK, show me how you have lost revenue and then sue me."

If they have suffered no loss the handcuff is unreasonable and hence unenforceable.

Nope because they can say 'Yeah, will show you in court when we show the judge how you broke a contract you willingly signed.'

Who blinks first? The OP seems to be on the verge of doing so seeing as he's asking the question.

Of course you can stand by an hope they dont follow through with their threat but at the same time, that may worry the OP more.

[SueEllen]

How will they know, are you going to tell them?

Unfortunately some other contractors have big mouths.

[SlipTheJab]

How will they know, are you going to tell them?

I remember getting an IB role direct and being made to go through an agency a long time ago, there was a 6 month exclusion clause in it. I got it removed as that was just taking the piss, I found the role direct and the agency we're basically just doing payroll so a clause like that takes the mick.

[SueEllen]

People are getting hung up on 12 months. Forget that. The OP is talking about 2 months here... 12 months is very difficult to enforce as it's not really fair or reasonable except for fairly extreme circumstances. 6 months is however is more than reasonable and OP is even less than that.

When you go to court the unenforceable parts of handcuff clauses are just crossed out. The judge doesn't put an enforceable clause in it's place.

This is why the wording of the clause or clauses are important as well as the size and nature of the client.

In this case there are many things wrong with the agency's clause but unless a solicitor (though a barrister would be better) looked at the precise wording we have no idea what part of the clause is enforceable if any of it.

[DaveB]

Yes they can!

But, the point is not that they would go to the wire but that they could seriously rattle the oP's cage over the issue.

In other words, first they say 'take the role and we sue' to frighten the OP. OP stands firm and says 'Sue me.' Agency says 'OK, but we've go tulip load of money and once we start, if you back down, we want you to pay our costs.'

Well, do yah feel lucky, punk?

No, what you do is say "OK, show me how you have lost revenue and then sue me."

If they have suffered no loss the handcuff is unreasonable and hence unenforceable.

[BolshieBastard]

Yes they can!

But, the point is not that they would go to the wire but that they could seriously rattle the oP's cage over the issue.

In other words, first they say 'take the role and we sue' to frighten the OP. OP stands firm and says 'Sue me.' Agency says 'OK, but we've go tulip load of money and once we start, if you back down, we want you to pay our costs.'

Well, do yah feel lucky, punk?

[BlasterBates]

The handcuff clause is there to stop you doing the dirty on the agency, i.e. switching agencies mid-contract, anything else is questionable. If you are being put forward to a different group in Barclays you are almost certainly in the clear.

Don't worry about it, just go ahead, as you say it's not like the agency have offered you an alternative.

[SueEllen]

The real answer to both your questions is "depends" on how the clauses are worded.

If it's written like most agency handcuff clauses then "No" as the Barclays group is large enough for you to argue it's a restraint of trade.

[TheFaQQer]

You ask two different questions:

Can my old agency sue me for working for another company within the client group?

Can they enforce this silly restriction

The answer to the first is "yes". The answer to the second is "possibly".

[northernladuk]

People are getting hung up on 12 months. Forget that. The OP is talking about 2 months here... 12 months is very difficult to enforce as it's not really fair or reasonable except for fairly extreme circumstances. 6 months is however is more than reasonable and OP is even less than that.

So yes... the OP is well within the timescales of a handcuff so it's valid from that point. The question would be the agency proving loss. As mentioned they are completely different organisations so you aren't going back to an old client. It's a new one so I'd say the handcuff is completely invalid in this case... Unless Barclays and Barclaycard have a shared agreement with PSL's but I'd be surprised at that.

[Dallas]

Resource Solutions will still have you and your prior agency on their books as they onboard you, cant get away from that.

What they do with that - let us know