Reply to: Agency removed from preferred supplier list - advice needed

[pmetcalfe]

Hello,

Thank you again to all those who've kindly posted replies to my enquiries, I am really grateful to you.

I've had a look at the url links posted. It appears to me that as I signed the contract with the agency in November 2002 and the regulations came in to being afterwards, I am by default 'opted in', as I haven't since signed any 'opt out' document.

This, plus the url info, seems to suggest that the most the agency could demand from me would be a maximum of 14 weeks margin, if I contracted directly with the bank.

1) Is this interpretation correct?
2) If so, does it apply where the agency doesn't have a contract with the bank?
3) If the agency ask me for a one-off payment, what can I do? Negotiate?
4) If I negotiate a payment, what would be reasonable?
5) If the agency demands a commission, can I then ask to see their agency/bank contract to establish their actual margin?

My thanks again in advance for all useful replies.

Regards
PM

PS It's not CP

[tim123]

Is it LloydsTSB & CP?

Whatever one may think of CP it hardly meets the definition "being too small to be able to help them fill positions".

tim

[snaw]

That's ahppened to me me before as well, didn't have the same hassles you had, just transferred to one of the agencies on the preferred supplisers list.

Still grates that the feckers I transferred too (Comsys) creamed a % of my money for doing absolutely nothing beyond billing for my time etc. I had a relationship with my old agency, but the new one was so big they couldn't have cared less and they'd no desire to help me find a new contract somewhere else when my time was up, bunchcunts.

[Troll]

Hello,

Can anyone please give me some advice on an unusual contract situation? Apologies for being a bit longwinded.

I work at a bank through an agency, who have 'preferred supplier' status conferred by the bank. I originally had a 100 day contract with the agency, and this has been extended to a one month rolling one. I've been working at the bank through the agency for over four years.

Last Wednesday 7th March, my manager told me that the bank's Supplier Management department had removed the agency's preferred supplier status. The contract between the bank and the agency was only up to 31 March, after which time it ceases and will not be renewed. I spoke to the Supplier Management department and they confirmed this.

Is it LloydsTSB & CP?

[MarillionFan]

It would be interesting for an agency to inforce that clause. Effectively the clause invoked is to cover the agency for loss of revenue.

The fact they won't get any because they have lost their contract and with the new regulations means that the clause will become null and void.

The agency will obviously threaten you IMHO. Call their bluff.

[tim123]

You may well be opted-in (or is that out I never really know), but the client and agency probably have a different B2B contract that includes clauses restricting the client appointing staff from the agency, and this isn't covered under the Act as far as i know

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Sr/sr2005/20050395.htm#10

tim

[tim123]

interesting - I have spokent to a number of pimps who say that regardless of EAA regulations they have a contract with the end client and if that says you cannot work for them for a certain period after the contract ends the pimps feel this would be upheld by a court of law.

me I think not - EAA forms part of employment laws and regulations - the contract between agency and end client is not part of employment law/regualtions so if it goes to court it will be employment law v contract law

anyone wanna guess who would win?

The new agency regulations make these clauses void as well.

tim

[pmetcalfe]

Hello,

Thank you ratewhore for your kind posts.

My apologies if I wasn't clear. The contract between the agency and the bank is not really the issue. I'm only concerned about the contract that I currently have with the agency: this particular contract has the '12 month no direct contract' clause.

So my question is: Should this clause still apply to me, if the agency no longer has a contract with the bank?

Thanks again in advance for all useful posts.

Regards
PM

[ratewhore]

I would just reiterate what I said earlier. The bank is obviously happy to take you on and that any reference to poaching in their contract with the agency is not a worry to them. It certainly shouldn't be a worry to you as you are not party to those contractual items.

In terms of your contract with the agency, cleverer people than me have already stated what this means in terms of the agency regulations.

If it was me, I would be contracting direct although do bear in mind they may put you on 90 day payment terms...

[pmetcalfe]

Hello,

Thanks very much to everyone who kindly took the time to post replies to my enquiry.

I thought some extra information may help generate some additional replies:

1) I spoke to Supplier Management at the bank. They told me that they had conducted a review of their suppliers and they now regard the agency as "being too small to be able to help them fill positions". This is their reason as to why the bank are not continuing their contract with the agency after 31 March.

2) The bank are indeed happy for me contract directly with them.

3) The bank do not wish to discuss with me any aspect of the contract they have with the agency, other than to say that it ceases on 31 March.

4) The bank said that they will not enter into any negotiations with the agency for any sort of 'payoff' or margin. Once the agency/bank contract ceases on 31 March, that's it as far as the bank are concerned. Either I contract directly or they use someone from a preferred supplier.

5) The agency told me they haven't received any official letter from the bank stating that the bank/agency contract is to cease on March 31. The agency's legal people are looking at their agency/bank contract to see if it is a fixed-ended or rolling contract.

I get the impression that the agency are desperately trying to ensure they continue to get some margin from me for at least another 12 months.

I'd heard of some Restrictive/Unfair Contract Act, does anyone have any more info on this?

I thought that the 12 month clause was primarily there to prevent poaching by clients, providing there was still an existing contract between the agency and the end client. If, as in my case, there is no contract between the agency and the client, what happens then? Can I be sued by the agency if I go direct?

Once again, my thanks for all useful replies.

Regards
PM

[rootsnall]

You may well be opted-in (or is that out I never really know), but the client and agency probably have a different B2B contract that includes clauses restricting the client appointing staff from the agency, and this isn't covered under the Act as far as i know

Not an expert but pretty sure the agency can't restrict you with an agreement between itself and the client if this contravenes the regs. There would not be any point in the regs if they could !

[ratewhore]

You may well be opted-in (or is that out I never really know), but the client and agency probably have a different B2B contract that includes clauses restricting the client appointing staff from the agency, and this isn't covered under the Act as far as i know

If that is the case then the risk lies with the client, not the contractor, as stated previously. If the client is willing to accept that risk then fill yer boots...

[boredsenseless]

You need to look at the contract between the bank and the agency, after 4 years the buy out figure should be pretty low. On a long contract I did it was down to 3 months commission to the agent. It'll still need some negotiating as somebody will have to shell out 3 months commission up front if you go down that route. If you are deemed to be 'opted in' I think the agency still has you tied up for 8 weeks, so effectivley that route would cost 8 weeks commission to buy out the agent.

Alternatively, after 4 years its time for a change !

You may well be opted-in (or is that out I never really know), but the client and agency probably have a different B2B contract that includes clauses restricting the client appointing staff from the agency, and this isn't covered under the Act as far as i know

[rootsnall]

You need to look at the contract between the bank and the agency, after 4 years the buy out figure should be pretty low. On a long contract I did it was down to 3 months commission to the agent. It'll still need some negotiating as somebody will have to shell out 3 months commission up front if you go down that route. If you are deemed to be 'opted in' I think the agency still has you tied up for 8 weeks, so effectivley that route would cost 8 weeks commission to buy out the agent.

Alternatively, after 4 years its time for a change !

[Victor Meldrew]

If you want to continue at the bank, just renew your contract direct with the bank and forget about the agency.