Struggling to live on work through an agency

Hammyman

No it doesn't work the other way.

Mary_Hartnell

I wonder if this "change of agency" stuff has been set up to prevent him and his fellow agency workers from acquiring "12 week" rights?

an9i77

Hammyman wrote: »

No it doesn't work the other way.

Often particularly in specialised roles such as IT, contractor rates are higher than permanent staff as the skills can be so specialised that the contractors can virtually name their price. EG £50 per hour for a web developer compared to £30k for permanent staff.

teabelly

If the agency want to stop him working for another agency and he has work would the current agency be liable to pay him compensation if he were prevented from earning a living by their rules? I thought such restrictions in employment contracts had been declared completely unenforceable for restrictions on permanent employees going to a rival employer so it makes sense that an agency worker should have similar rights now.

I'd be off down the CAB or a free consultation with an employment lawyer.

Gingernutty

We've had this problem where we work.

We do very specialized work for the NHS, the agencies that supply the 'rare-as-hens'-teeth' temps are very 'precious' about their staff and often have clauses in the contracts that the temps sign - it's usually along the lines of "if you leave Agency A and sign up to Agency B and then work for Agency B within the same NHS trust within 8/12/13 weeks of leaving Agency B then you are in breach of contract and owe us the last 8/12/13 weeks of money".

One temp got into a lot of trouble because our boss got into some dispute with one agency and asked their temp to sign up to another agency. The first agency, suspicious about the sudden loss of one of their workers when we'd been crying out for temps earlier, called up asking to speak to the temp. AND GOT PUT THROUGH.

Busted.

So yes, check the contract that was signed as it may well be that there is a clause of some description preventing the worker doing the same work, in the same place under another agency. If they are well liked by the Employer, they may well try to get around it somehow, but don't hold your breath.

Poppy9

teabelly wrote: »

If the agency want to stop him working for another agency and he has work would the current agency be liable to pay him compensation if he were prevented from earning a living by their rules? I thought such restrictions in employment contracts had been declared completely unenforceable for restrictions on permanent employees going to a rival employer so it makes sense that an agency worker should have similar rights now.

.

Contracts in restraint of trade

Mary_Hartnell

I have had another chat with the "victim".

He has been round to see the "new" agency and they have had a haggle with the "old" agency.

I think the outcome was "bung us £500 quid and you can have him" but as the contract with the parcel firm is only lasting until Xmas (and parcel sorters and loaders are not exactly in short supply) why should the new agency give away £500 to get a reasonably experienced worker who already "knows the ropes"; when they are contracted to provide operatives with two arms, two legs and half a brain.

I am becoming more convinced that this is an exercise to get round the new 12 week rules - the law of unintended consequences:
"Sack em now, we don't want to come back to a whole new semi permanent workforce expecting to be paid for doing virtually nothing for Xmas week and early January".

The parcel firm in question is not the Post Office (Parcelforce) but if it were, there are a lot of places in the country where only Parcelforce has a depot. So some parcel worker would definitely be out of work for 8 weeks.

Another thought based on the ParcelForce example: would this 8 week rule apply throughout England & Wales, or would working for a different depot count as a different job?
How about working for a depot in Scotland - would this stitch-up contract reach into a different legal jurisdiction?