Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Temporary Employment Contract - question

  • 11-10-2007 8:11pm
    #1
    HIEROPHANT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭


    Hi all,
    I have signed a contract of employment with an agency, and there is a clause I'm not sure about:

    Restraint:
    The employee (me) agrees that, for a period of 12 months following the end of the contract period, he shall not as a principal, partner, director, employee, consultant or otherwise, be directly or indirectly engaged by the Client or otherwise engaged or employed to work for the Client or at the client site, other than under the terms of an Agreement with the Employer, without the express written consent of the Employer.



    So, what does that mean? If the Client (the company I work for) agrees to make a contract of employment with me, would I be liable of anything?
    Would I be accountable for something?
    What would be the outcome in your opinion?

    In the end, is this just a term of the contract, and if I breach it I just lose the contract itself, or can I have some responsibility and being liable for paying something, like a compensation?
    Would my new contract with the Client being at risk of being nullify by this clause?



    Thank you in advance, very much


Comments

  • #2
    KdjaCL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,346 ✭✭✭✭KdjaCL


    You cannot work for the company they send you to without them getting paid.

    The agency possibly has a "transfer" fee in their contract with the company which allows them to charge the company if they hire you during the term they leased you for.

    I am sure you would be sued for breach of contract for the "transfer" fee.

    Usually you leave the agency, then 2 weeks later join the company.


    kdjac


  • #3
    HIEROPHANT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭HIEROPHANT


    My contract is about to expire, the "assignment" will end in few weeks.
    You say that After the contract is expired, I could just go ahead an be hired by the company, without the agency being able to sue me?
    Ah, maybe everybody does and I don't know :D


    Thanks.


  • #4
    KdjaCL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,346 ✭✭✭✭KdjaCL


    if company has offered you a position you should see their HR person, we I have heard of ways around this since your nearing the end of your contract it makes your position different.

    they can rightfully sue you for the trasnfer fee, which imo is unjust and shouldnt be there but im not the law so see your new jobs HR person before your contract ends and before you take the new job.


    kdjac


  • #5
    Patrickof
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Patrickof


    I was always of the understanding that once your contract ends with an employer then any such clauses that restrict you afterwards are in contravention of the EU freedom of labour laws. If you want to restrict someone post contract then you have to pay them, a la "gardening leave", I could be wrong though.


  • #6
    Jo King
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭Jo King


    Patrickof wrote: »
    I was always of the understanding that once your contract ends with an employer then any such clauses that restrict you afterwards are in contravention of the EU freedom of labour laws. If you want to restrict someone post contract then you have to pay them, a la "gardening leave", I could be wrong though.

    Not the case. Restrictive covenants are quite common. They must be reasonable in terms of time and geographical extent otherwise they are void. Agencies naturally want to protect themselves against a situation where the introduce an employee top an employer for ostensibly a short period and hence a small commission only for the employer to offer a permanent job to the employee shortly after the expiry of the original period of employment, thus avoiding paying a fulll commission to the agency.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Jo King wrote: »
    Not the case. Restrictive covenants are quite common. They must be reasonable in terms of time and geographical extent otherwise they are void. Agencies naturally want to protect themselves against a situation where the introduce an employee top an employer for ostensibly a short period and hence a small commission only for the employer to offer a permanent job to the employee shortly after the expiry of the original period of employment, thus avoiding paying a fulll commission to the agency.

    It seeems to me that a restrictive covenant should only be enforceable when the employee is privy to sensitive/copyright information or where there would be another obvious prejudice to the employer if the employee went to another company. That an employer doesn't want their employee to get another job, or that they feel they deserve a commission if that person gets another job is not really a runner, in my view.

    These comments are not directed in any way towards the original poster, who should seek legal advice.


Advertisement