Restriction of work clause

[KathyWoolfe]

Originally Posted by KathyWoolfe
I now have an interview arranged with the same client but different dept (and different city) through agent Y.

Agent might scream and threaten but honestly doubt any court would say this came under the restrictions of current/previous contract.


You have a new introduction to the client (agent Y), it's in a different dept/city, you are having to go though the interview process again. For the first agency to attempt to apply their contract in this scenario would be a pretty clear restriction of trade (not allowed) instead of protection of business assets/contacts (allowed)

Hey!!!...I didn't originally quote this!!!!

[Not So Wise]

I now have an interview arranged with the same client but different dept (and different city) through agent Y.

Agent might scream and threaten but honestly doubt any court would say this came under the restrictions of current/previous contract.

You have a new introduction to the client (agent Y), it's in a different dept/city, you are having to go though the interview process again. For the first agency to attempt to apply their contract in this scenario would be a pretty clear restriction of trade (not allowed) instead of protection of business assets/contacts (allowed)

[MrRobin]

Thanks. I can see that this very discussion was had just a short while ago here. I should have searched first... slapped wrists.

[TheFaQQer]

I would believe that the operative phrase here is "go direct". This is the phrase that stops you working for the client through agency A and signing up directly with the client on the same work, thus depriving agency A of their fee. I can't see how agency A can stop you working through agency B as they obviously haven't got an exclusive arrangement with the client. If they HAVE got an exclusive arrangement with the client then their quarrel is with their client and not with you. IMHO.

Generally, most contracts between agency and you say that you would have to go through them to work with the client again. That would cover going direct and also cover going through another agency. If they have that, then they could pursue a claim for breach of contract if you go through anyone else.

Ring the PCG legal helpline, and I'm pretty sure that they would advise you to look elsewhere, or risk this happening.

[KathyWoolfe]

I have been in a gig with client A through agent Z for 7 months now but the contract is coming to an end prematurely (client's decision) at the end of this week. I now have an interview arranged with the same client but different dept (and different city) through agent Y.

I know I wouldn't be able to go direct with the same client because of the restriction clause saying I can't work for them for 12 months after termination of contract but is it different for with another agency? How would you play it?

P.S. I opted out of the EAA regs

I would believe that the operative phrase here is "go direct". This is the phrase that stops you working for the client through agency A and signing up directly with the client on the same work, thus depriving agency A of their fee. I can't see how agency A can stop you working through agency B as they obviously haven't got an exclusive arrangement with the client. If they HAVE got an exclusive arrangement with the client then their quarrel is with their client and not with you. IMHO.

[MrRobin]

I have been in a gig with client A through agent Z for 7 months now but the contract is coming to an end prematurely (client's decision) at the end of this week. I now have an interview arranged with the same client but different dept (and different city) through agent Y.

I know I wouldn't be able to go direct with the same client because of the restriction clause saying I can't work for them for 12 months after termination of contract but is it different for with another agency? How would you play it?

P.S. I opted out of the EAA regs