Reply to: Recruitment consultant / direct contact issue

[kal]

Read this over lunch and laughed out loud!

Indeed :-) no one disputes that you deserve a few quid for finding the geezer who can do what needs doing its just the length that seems excessive...

[Andy Hallett]

+1 Indeed, I belive Holywood are making a film about this soon... Its called 12 months an IT slave

Read this over lunch and laughed out loud!

[saptastic]

If there is a "finder's fee" in the contract then fair enough - this is what the client signs up to initially so they should know the score. Whether that is enforecable is up to the agency. But from past experience I would also be careful of a client that want's to potentially cut corners in terms that this is sometimes a reflection of the company.

[kal]

Thanks for your reply.

I couldn't find the question about not getting paid for your work, but there is a well established and cheap (but not in time perhaps) process for late payers.

The question above, well yes I might be a bit miffed off but ultimately the other person is doing the work and should be renumerated for it. Trying to carry on getting a cut from their work with the threat of court action doesn't sit right with me.

I can see that I've added value to the client introducing them to someone who they now use and I should be renumerated for that it's just how much or for how long that renumeration should continue we differ about.

Thanks

+1 Indeed, I belive Holywood are making a film about this soon... Its called 12 months an IT slave

[Antman]

See that nobody answered my point about not getting paid for their work.

Another example; you sub someone in using your RoS. The client like this person, hire them direct cutting you out of the loop, possibly replacing you, still happy?

Thanks for your reply.

I couldn't find the question about not getting paid for your work, but there is a well established and cheap (but not in time perhaps) process for late payers.

The question above, well yes I might be a bit miffed off but ultimately the other person is doing the work and should be renumerated for it. Trying to carry on getting a cut from their work with the threat of court action doesn't sit right with me.

I can see that I've added value to the client introducing them to someone who they now use and I should be renumerated for that it's just how much or for how long that renumeration should continue we differ about.

Thanks

[Andy Hallett]

See that nobody answered my point about not getting paid for their work.

Another example; you sub someone in using your RoS. The client like this person, hire them direct cutting you out of the loop, possibly replacing you, still happy?

[Andy Hallett]

There are two types of circumstances for these cases, and they receive a differing treatment. Introduction and Supply

We believe 12 months to be fair and reasonable for an introduction where we are the effective cause.

Our restriction period and the subsequent clauses that flow from them where we have supplied are governed by the prevailing legislation and agree contract in respect of client and contractor.

[kal]

If it is a pre-supply, ie an introduction that leads to a direct engagement then we only have a contract with the client.

We try and avoid court where possible as I am interested in building our UK business, not becoming Perry Mason. Most cases will settle commercially.



Yes, several



Not aware of those companies names

If they were companies in our group then we wouldn't charge 2x fees.

--------

I sense a bit of outrage from the CCUK massive on this. If you did a project for a client, it worked, and they didn't pay you you'd be pretty fed up and moaning on here.

Why stop at 12 months, make it 2, 5 or even 10 years, if you introduced the contractor to the client and they took him on 20 years later its only fair you get compensated for the work you've done (or do you deem that to be to excessive being as you run a global department specialising in this). Just for the record I agree that you should be compensated for the work you've done, I just have a issue with the length of time you effectively think you own the contractor, 3 months seems fair at the very most. 12 months is a long time in IT.

[Wanderer]

I don't think a 12 month exclusivity period is going to stand up in court especially when the agency conduct regulations restrict restraints of trade to 14 weeks from the start or 8 weeks from the end of a contract (I know that doesn't necessarily apply here but there is an example of a "reasonable" exclusivity period). But I'm sure there are plenty of clients who cave in to the bluff and bluster and pay up so it's worth it from the agency point of view...

And what if the client claims that they already knew of the contractor via a different agency. What then? Do the two agencies fight it out? Or does the agency just hush it up....

[Andy Hallett]

Andy, I'm interested to know, have you ever gone to court with a contractor (I'll assume that you wouldn't try and sue a client) who has breached the 12 month notice period?

Do you take everybody to court who breaches this period?

Is there a point where you say we won't take this person to court (say someone who has returned to one of your clients 7 months after they finished there the first time).

If you don't take people to court how do you deal with these cases?

Thanks,

If it is a pre-supply, ie an introduction that leads to a direct engagement then we only have a contract with the client.

We try and avoid court where possible as I am interested in building our UK business, not becoming Perry Mason. Most cases will settle commercially.

Has this 12 month handcuff clause been tested in court? If not then my opinion is as valid as yours (even if you are 'luckily' running a global department...)

Yes, several

What happens if it's a different agency as part of the same group? eg. Hoaxley send the CV over and pray there's a job there, client rejects it, and six months later Aggressive finds the contractor a role at the same place?

Not aware of those companies names

If they were companies in our group then we wouldn't charge 2x fees.

--------

I sense a bit of outrage from the CCUK massive on this. If you did a project for a client, it worked, and they didn't pay you you'd be pretty fed up and moaning on here.

[northernladuk]

Not sure why everyone is talking about the legal aspects and taking it to court. We all know full well nothing ever goes to court as it's too expensive and helps no one. In many cases a quiet word and pointing out the contract is more than enough to back down. If an agent presents a good case to a client the client will just back down and go with it for fear of having to go through a legal process.

It's always dealt with through negotiation not courts.

[eek]

I don't understand, I was assuming the case where the end client takes on a contractor they had used previously but trying to eliminate the middle man. In this case it's the end client who have breached the agreement. What is the scenario of agency junior breaching agreement with end client?

I said that I assumed that end clients don't get taken to court because you don't bite the hand that feeds you. Contractors on the other hand...

It would never be the agency junior its the end client junior agreeing / deciding to employ the contractor directly in breach of the agency / end client contract.

And you usually can't sue the contractor directly as

1) they don't have the cash
2) there are various nasty bits that make doing it difficult....

[Antman]

You've got that wrong. If the relationship between agency and end client has been breached you sue the end client..

Remember its usually breached by someone junior so as soon as end client's legal department finds out the issue is often resolved well before court.

I don't understand, I was assuming the case where the end client takes on a contractor they had used previously but trying to eliminate the middle man. In this case it's the end client who have breached the agreement. What is the scenario of agency junior breaching agreement with end client?

I said that I assumed that end clients don't get taken to court because you don't bite the hand that feeds you. Contractors on the other hand...

[TheFaQQer]

You are of course entitled to your [incorrect] opinion. Luckily I have the benefit of running the global department that deals with these issues for us and have a different view.

What happens if it's a different agency as part of the same group? eg. Hoaxley send the CV over and pray there's a job there, client rejects it, and six months later Aggressive finds the contractor a role at the same place?

[kal]

You are of course entitled to your [incorrect] opinion. Luckily I have the benefit of running the global department that deals with these issues for us and have a different view.

Has this 12 month handcuff clause been tested in court? If not then my opinion is as valid as yours (even if you are 'luckily' running a global department...)