Reply to: Contract restrictions on going permanent

[northernladuk]

Not sure if this is relevant? Opt In or Opt Out - Conduct Regs - Clarity Umbrella Ltd if you stayed opted in it looks like they can't prevent you working directly for the company?

Kind of right but not quite. Regulation 10 of the Conduct regulations states that they cannot enforce a restriction after the relevant period. That period is the longer of 14 weeks after the first working day and 8 weeks after the last working day. So no, a standard handcuff of 3 months or whatever cant' stand but there will be a restriction of (usually) 8 weeks after you leave. So effectively two months.

It's no good for most people as the situation normally requires and immediate start when they flip from from contractor to perm or from agent to agent. The two months kind kills any opportunity to do that. So no it doesn't help the OP unless they want to wait two months instead of whatever the term is in their contract.

Wording from the legislation is

(4) Any term of a contract between an employment business and a hirer which is contingent on any of the following events, namely a work-seeker—

(a)taking up employment with the hirer;

(b)taking up employment with any person (other than the hirer) to whom the hirer has introduced him; or

(c)working for the hirer pursuant to being supplied by another employment business,

is unenforceable by the employment business in relation to the event concerned where the work-seeker begins such employment or begins working for the hirer pursuant to being supplied by another employment business, as the case may be, after the end of the relevant period.

(5) In paragraph (4), “the relevant period” means whichever of the following periods ends later, namely—

(a)the period of 8 weeks commencing on the day after the day on which the work-seeker last worked for the hirer pursuant to being supplied by the employment business; or

(b)subject to paragraph (6), the period of 14 weeks commencing on the first day on which the work-seeker worked for the hirer pursuant to the supply of that work-seeker to that hirer by the employment business.

[Aeia]

Not sure if this is relevant? Opt In or Opt Out - Conduct Regs - Clarity Umbrella Ltd if you stayed opted in it looks like they can't prevent you working directly for the company?

[ladymuck]

I have managed to negotiate a short term 1 month contract, which can be extended if there are continued delays. The agency are playing ball and have not made any trouble, so kudos to them. With regard to the new role, I am a bang average sys admin with very few tricks up my sleeve - devops I am not - but I work hard and have managed to gain the respect of my peers, which was probably why I was offered the role. I will miss the money of contracting (500pd), which I have had twelve good years of, but now entering my late-50's so I have decided to play it safe in a perm role(80k). It will be 4 days from home, but yes I am dreading the bureaucracy of going perm.

Sounds like a pragmatic approach to me. You can always return to contracting if the bureaucracy gets too much.

[luciasdad]

I have managed to negotiate a short term 1 month contract, which can be extended if there are continued delays. The agency are playing ball and have not made any trouble, so kudos to them. With regard to the new role, I am a bang average sys admin with very few tricks up my sleeve - devops I am not - but I work hard and have managed to gain the respect of my peers, which was probably why I was offered the role. I will miss the money of contracting (500pd), which I have had twelve good years of, but now entering my late-50's so I have decided to play it safe in a perm role(80k). It will be 4 days from home, but yes I am dreading the bureaucracy of going perm.

[TheDude]

Just the fact you seem to think permies in banks work more hours than contractors makes me think you have no clue what you're talking about.

I have worked for many banks and know exactly what I am talking about.

Maybe permies at places like RBS or Barclays can get away with being slack/crap but pretty much everywhere else cracks the whip.

As a contractor I may work more effectively than some of my colleagues but I certainly don't work harder. I pretty much do 8-5 most days and am rarely online in the evening or weekends.

At some of the US banks I have worked for long hours are practically mandatory if you want any sort of decent number on comp day. Of course technology are nowhere near the front of the queue anyway so if the bank has a bad year you are getting a derisory amount irrespective of personal performance.

Performance reviews are a time consuming ordeal - particularly if you are trying to make VP or director when you will have to demonstrate a load of extra curricular achievement as well.

Sooner or later you are not moving any further up the chain but still expect pay rises and bonuses. Come cost cutting time you are a prime target for redundancy because there are plenty of younger cheaper people moving through the system to replace you.

[northernladuk]

[sadkingbilly]

<modsnip>

[PCTNN]

Going permie at bank = (less money x more hours) + performance review hell.

Plus you have a good few years of donut/insultingly low bonuses to look forward to.

You don't know the rate they are on now, you don't know the salary they are being offered, you don't know the benefits package.

What you perceive as performance review hell, they may see as something less taxing.

Just the fact you seem to think permies in banks work more hours than contractors makes me think you have no clue what you're talking about.

Great post, thank you for your invaluable contribution <modsnip>

[TheDude]

Going permie at bank = (less money x more hours) + performance review hell.

Plus you have a good few years of donut/insultingly low bonuses to look forward to.

[luciasdad]

I should have clarity tomorrow. I was worried I might not get paid, but that came through today. I'll keep you posted.

[northernladuk]

The bank HR is notoriously slow, so I haven't yet handed in my notice to intermediary or agency. I have been assured, but it's now over a month since I accepted. It's all a bit of a mess.

You don't need to hand notice in if the contract is expiring at the end of the week. It would be the agency you hand it in to as you have no contractual relationship with the consultancy if you did have to give notice. You'd only tell the consultancy/client out of courtesy. Question is, if it's expiring at the end of the week are you going to be able to get a 1 month extention agreed and signed in 4 days? You aren't kidding this is a mess. Interested to see how it all pans out though.

[northernladuk]

Thanks everybody for all your responses. This is the restriction stated in the contract:
"
The Agency Worker shall not, during the Assignment or for a period of 6 months following the termination of the Assignment, supply their services directly, or through any other firm or Employment Business, to any Hirer for which s/he has carried out Assignments at any time during the previous 6 months.

Intermediary shall use its reasonable endeavours to procure that the Agency Worker shall not during the Assignment or for a period of 6 months following the termination of the Assignment supply the services of the Agency Worker directly, or through any other person, firm or Employment Business, to any Hirer for which s/he has carried out Assignments at any time during the previous 6 months."

Not beyond the realms of possibility that the agent classes the bank as the hirer even though there is someone else in the chain. It's either because they aren't the sharpest tools or they'll try anything on to get their pockets lined.

The contract ends at the end of this week. But the bank have yet to give me a start date. The bank are happy for me to continue on a short 1 month contract until paperwork and checks completed. The new role is with a different team in the bank.

The bank maybe but I am absolutely sure the agency won't be, possibly not the consultancy either. They aren't happy with teh situation as it is let alone all the extra leg work to suit you and the bank and not them. That's gonna be a tough ask in the current climate. Has the consultancy and agent agreed to this yet?

[luciasdad]

The bank HR is notoriously slow, so I haven't yet handed in my notice to intermediary or agency. I have been assured, but it's now over a month since I accepted. It's all a bit of a mess.

[luciasdad]

Thanks everybody for all your responses. This is the restriction stated in the contract:
"
The Agency Worker shall not, during the Assignment or for a period of 6 months following the termination of the Assignment, supply their services directly, or through any other firm or Employment Business, to any Hirer for which s/he has carried out Assignments at any time during the previous 6 months.

Intermediary shall use its reasonable endeavours to procure that the Agency Worker shall not during the Assignment or for a period of 6 months following the termination of the Assignment supply the services of the Agency Worker directly, or through any other person, firm or Employment Business, to any Hirer for which s/he has carried out Assignments at any time during the previous 6 months."

The contract ends at the end of this week. But the bank have yet to give me a start date. The bank are happy for me to continue on a short 1 month contract until paperwork and checks completed. The new role is with a different team in the bank.

[northernladuk]

True but when it comes to the question I think NLUK is asking - which is what is the risk of HMRC coming calling because you've switched from outside to permanent - it's utterly irrelevant PAYE has been paid continually.

And I would agree that my current contract is probably outside within UK employment law but I can see why banks are risk adverse because most of their managers are crap at dealing with contract staff in ways that don't make them employees in HMRC's biased eyes.

Eek is correct. Had a complete brain fart there.

The other question regarding the role. If he's been taken on to do a different role then the handcuff is even less valid but the assumption is he's just filling the role he's currently covering. Just thought I'd check.