Reply to: Non-solicitation clause

[ASB]

This one can, believe me. I was on the distribution list for the original line managers' internal email where this was announced so we could be prepared if any of our guys have problems. None of mine did (they're way too smart to use CP in the first palce ), but the OP has so I'm trying to help him out like a good (Big Company I cannot name) manager is supposed to do. So just for once, I am fairly confident in what I'm saying.

I'll try again.

In practical terms the large organisation in question can (and will) beat CP into submission such as CP will leave the affected people alone. They will probably reach a legal settlement with CP, part of which involves CP relinquisihng thier rights under the contract.

In legal terms this cannot be forced upon CP. CP could decide to face them. [This may well turn out to be a poor decision].

Thus whilst I agree in practical terms it is not going to be an issue there can be no absolute gurantee that is the way it will pan out.

[DodgyAgent]

This one can, believe me. I was on the distribution list for the original line managers' internal email where this was announced so we could be prepared if any of our guys have problems. None of mine did (they're way too smart to use CP in the first palce ), but the OP has so I'm trying to help him out like a good (Big Company I cannot name) manager is supposed to do. So just for once, I am fairly confident in what I'm saying.

I take it you are getting backhanders from SQ for "promoting" them

[malvolio]

This one can, believe me. I was on the distribution list for the original line managers' internal email where this was announced so we could be prepared if any of our guys have problems. None of mine did (they're way too smart to use CP in the first palce ), but the OP has so I'm trying to help him out like a good (Big Company I cannot name) manager is supposed to do. So just for once, I am fairly confident in what I'm saying.

[ASB]

They may have the right to sue, that doesnt mean they will win though. I doubt any serious business enters in to litigation with the sole intent of spending more money than they could ever hope to get back from any result in their favour.

Mailman

Quite.

I was just pointing out that whilst malvolio states (I paraphrase) "it'll be OK because the client will sort it out" the fact is the client cannot guarantee to be able to do that. Not least because they are not a party to the contract which is potentially actionable. [Obviously they might be able to get an undertaking from CP].

[Mailman]

because they have the absolute right to make that choice.

They may have the right to sue, that doesnt mean they will win though. I doubt any serious business enters in to litigation with the sole intent of spending more money than they could ever hope to get back from any result in their favour.

Mailman

[Mailman]

So stop being a victim and go get your money back! Sheeesh!

Mailman

[topgun]

untrustable recruiter

Hi,

I'm currently contracting with a client through Computer People and the contract is coming up for renewal soon.
The client wants me to stay but, as C.P have recently been removed from the Clients Preferred Supplier List (poor service - surprise, surprise!), so I need to move to another agency.
The problem is I have a non-solicitation clause in my contract with C.P. and I'd like to know what my options are? Is this clause enforceable?

The clause is:

Non-solicitation of Client
Throughout the Assignment Period and for a period of 4 months afterwards the Contractor will not and will procure that the Personnel will not provide services similar to the Services or any information technology related services in any capacity either directly or indirectly to:

the Client (or to any of the Client’s subsidiary or associate companies in respect of which it provided Services during the Assignment Period);
any customer of the Client or any of the customer’s subsidiary or associate companies in respect of which it provided Services during the Assignment Period; other than with the written consent of the Company. The Contractor shall also not discourage the Client from dealing with the Company. The Contractor hereby indemnifies the Company for all financial loss it suffers arising from any breach by the Contractor of this clause 11.

I've asked C.P if they will waive the clause but they haven't got back to me yet. Also, if I were to just not tell C.P. I'm moving could I get sued - I have my own Ltd which I could close down and start a new one?

Thanks in advance

CP has pushed me to work at his client without assigning contract. Afterwards, they put a lots of unfair clauses into the agreement. so far they still owe me 1000 pounds. This is the most untrustable recruiter I have met.

[Skibum71]

And given CP have been kicked out by the client, the client has no remaining leverage with CP - otherwise they could have pressured CP into not suing the contractor.

Just as a matter of interest though - why does the contractor need to move agencies just because CP are not on the PSL?

The client no longer wishes to deal with C.P. so all contracts that are up need to be changed to a different agency that is on the PSL.

[malvolio]

Malvolio - you are correct!

Right. In that case speak to Paul Haynes at SQ and tell him you need a new agent.

[interested]

Fair comment.

But, as a matter of fact, the client can't actually do anything at all to prevent CP from suing the OP. Granted there may well be procedures in place that will enable the threats to frighten off CP, and these may well be effective. In the final analysis however if CP want to sue the OP they will - because they have the absolute right to make that choice.

And given CP have been kicked out by the client, the client has no remaining leverage with CP - otherwise they could have pressured CP into not suing the contractor.

Just as a matter of interest though - why does the contractor need to move agencies just because CP are not on the PSL?

[ASB]

Don't you lot ever read the thread? If it's who I think it is, (and unless CP have lost two major contracts in the last two weeks,which I hope has happened but somehow doubt) it's covered already. The individual contractors wil not have a problem.

Fair comment.

But, as a matter of fact, the client can't actually do anything at all to prevent CP from suing the OP. Granted there may well be procedures in place that will enable the threats to frighten off CP, and these may well be effective. In the final analysis however if CP want to sue the OP they will - because they have the absolute right to make that choice.

[Forumbore]

I know SQ

Malvolio - you are correct!

I also work on this site, and SQ are the ones who block contractors by telling them that they are going to put them up for jobs and dont. This tactic is used where agencies have a limit to the number of CVs that they can put forward as it stops other agencies from putting good contractors forward. The effect is to give the client a bad name and to ward off a lot of perfectly good contractors.

[Skibum71]

Malvolio - you are correct!

[DodgyAgent]

If that's who I think it is (Biggish comPany in London, Sunbury and the rest of the world?). you can almost certainly ignore it. Move across to SQ and let the Contractor Desk worry about ex-suppliers - they are considerably more powerful than you are, and I have it on good authroity (having spoken to the relevant line manager) that they have a clear plan to manage any such eventualities. Drop me an email at work (search the GAL for "GO Transition Manager") if that would help.

Of course, if it isn't that company, you're in trouble and will need to talk to your client ...

Who are SQ?

[malvolio]

Don't you lot ever read the thread? If it's who I think it is, (and unless CP have lost two major contracts in the last two weeks,which I hope has happened but somehow doubt) it's covered already. The individual contractors wil not have a problem.