Cut Out Agent At Contract Renewal ?

[malvolio]

If the client is changing sole suppliers, they will also novate actross their prime contract from old supplier to new, taking all the same conditions with it. The handcuff clause simply transfers to the new supplier. Your agency willl be similarly bound to the new contract.

As for re-negotiating anything, my standard newbie contractor comment applies: you need something to negotiate with. Apart from the best job possible - which is what you're already being paid to do, at an agreed rate - what other benefits do you bring to the party...?

[Spanner]

Hi,

Thanks for the replies.

My contract says this about restrictions:

"RESTRICTION
The Consultancy shall not and shall procure that the Consultancy Staff shall not for a period of 12 months following
the termination of the Assignment supply the services of the Consultancy Staff directly, or through any other person,
firm or Employment Business, to any Client for whom it has carried out the Assignment at any time during. the previous
12 months [sive in the case of supply through an Employment Business or recruitment consultancy with whom the
Consultancy was also registered at the date of commencement of the Assignment]."

And that's all it says.

The work I do is generic ( C#, WPF, PRISM etcetc )

As for the reasons for the well known company swapping sole supplier? I'm not sure. Nor am I sure that I'd be asked to stay. I'm just planning ahead.

If it looks like I will be extended then I'll have a word with the new sole supplier to see how the land lies. Failing that, I'll just negotiate a better rate with
my agent.

cheers

[SueEllen]

Handcuffed often mention suppliers as well as clients so as Wanderer says tell us exactly what it says.

+1

Lots of restrain of trade clauses written by agencies would be legally unenforceable if tested out in a court of law.

However most don't get that far.

For example for a start the time period on your clause is likely to be too long a period.

However as we don't know what work you do - some clients claim their product is niche but the skills you use are generic - , and we haven't seen the rest of your contract so we can't really say whether this is likely or not.

Plus you would really need a barrister's input to judge whether it is likely to be considered by a judge as being so.

[northernladuk]

Handcuffed often mention suppliers as well as clients so as Wanderer says tell us exactly what it says.

That aside there is going to be a lot of politics around a supplier swap. How confident are that the new supplier wants to take you on? Why have the old supplier been booted. If it because they were rubbish the client might not want anyone connected with the old supplier back and so on.

I would argue the politics of the situation maybe a bigger problem than contracts. The timing I would also guess is critical to you.

Do you have any sight into the politics or are you too removed from it?

[Wanderer]

Firstly, I signed the opt-out after the introduction but before I started work, so I believe that it's invalid.

It probably is. That won't stop the agency trying bluff and bluster on you though.

Secondly, the sole supplier is going to be replaced with a different sole supplier at just the time that my contract comes up for renewal. I've read my contract carefully and it restricts me from working directly for the client for 12 months ( or 8 weeks if the opt-out is invalid ). But in this case the client is named as the sole supplier. The name of the well known company is never mentioned in my contract.

Are you sure it doesn't say something like "the client OR any other company you had material contact with during the contract"?

If not, you may be OK. Speak to the client direct and they can probably come up with a deal. If they won't take you on directly then you can get an agency to do the job for minimum margin (5-7%). Alternatively you can contact the new sole supplier directly.

[Spanner]

Hi all,

I find myself in, perhaps, an unusual position and as a newbie I'd appreciate some opinions.

I am contracted through an agency to another firm who are the sole supplier of temporary staff to a very well known company.

To be clear, we have

Well known company : a few permies
Sole supplier : a fair number of permies and the rest contactors
My agency
Me ( or more specifically, my company )

Now my agent is an untrustworthy fellow. I'm ashamed to admit that he rather took advantage to my newbie-ness to lie to me about opting out
and also managed to stiff me on the rate post-interview. More fool me. Lesson learned.

This setup also means that I'm subject to double 'agency' fees. Contractors who are directly contracted to the sole supplier are probably on a fair bit more than me given my
agent is a bit of a shyster and is probably taking a hefty margin.

However, things are not all doom and gloom.

Firstly, I signed the opt-out after the introduction but before I started work, so I believe that it's invalid.

Secondly, the sole supplier is going to be replaced with a different sole supplier at just the time that my contract comes up for renewal. I've read my contract carefully and it restricts me
from working directly for the client for 12 months ( or 8 weeks if the opt-out is invalid ). But in this case the client is named as the sole supplier. The name of the well known company is never mentioned in my contract.

I'm thinking that maybe I could contract directly for the new sole supplier and cut out my agent when my current contact ends. Does that sound feasible? Or would it be more realistic
to simply try to reduce my agents margin at contract renewal?

cheers.