Stuck between 3 companies - need legal advice

[omarkhan]

There are three companies involved :

(a) is an employment agency that hired me on daily rate. No paperwork was done, other than signing criminal declaration.

(b) company I mainly work with on daily rate. No paperwork or contract was signed.

(c) company I work with at well through (b). (b) has a service contract with (c), and I was sent to work at (c) 80% of my timetable. No paperwork was signed by me, I get the same daily rate from (a).

Now here it gets complicated. I decide to quit (b),although no paperwork or agreement was in place, I give them 1 week notice as a good will.
When company (c) figures that, they offer me a job straight away.
Now (b) is obv angry for two reasons and threaten to sue me if I take the job.

1. Service agreement between (b) and (c), will not renew, because it was based on my CV and once (c) has me on board, they're not gonna need (b). (b) threatening to sue me for their loss of contract.

2. (a) is gonna sue (b), because I get a job indirectly through (b). (a) intends to sue (b) for the commission and then (b) threatens to sue me again for their loss.

Can someone please help here whether I can be sued and scared away to not join a good employer?

[cojak]

There are three companies involved :

(a) is an employment agency that hired me on daily rate. No paperwork was done, other than signing criminal declaration.

(b) company I mainly work with on daily rate. No paperwork or contract was signed.

(c) company I work with at well through (b). (b) has a service contract with (c), and I was sent to work at (c) 80% of my timetable. No paperwork was signed by me, I get the same daily rate from (a).

Now here it gets complicated. I decide to quit (b),although no paperwork or agreement was in place, I give them 1 week notice as a good will.
When company (c) figures that, they offer me a job straight away.
Now (b) is obv angry for two reasons and threaten to sue me if I take the job.

1. Service agreement between (b) and (c), will not renew, because it was based on my CV and once (c) has me on board, they're not gonna need (b). (b) threatening to sue me for their loss of contract.

2. (a) is gonna sue (b), because I get a job indirectly through (b). (a) intends to sue (b) for the commission and then (b) threatens to sue me again for their loss.

Can someone please help here whether I can be sued and scared away to not join a good employer?

Any contract is worth the paper it's written on, but I would probably take advice from an employment specialist.

[GhostofTarbera]

Stuck between 3 companies - need legal advice

Any contract is worth the paper it's written on, but I would probably take advice from an employment specialist.

This

Feck them and take best option and smoke a cigar sir


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[WordIsBond]

You really had no signed contract stating your rate, terms of payment, etc? With anyone?

If that's really true, can't see they have any leg to stand on. If there really is no signed contract, I would not spend any money on legal advice until you actually receive court papers. They're bluffing.

[GhostofTarbera]

You really had no signed contract stating your rate, terms of payment, etc? With anyone?

If that's really true, can't see they have any leg to stand on. If there really is no signed contract, I would not spend any money on legal advice until you actually receive court papers. They're bluffing.

He wants to work direct sir


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[northernladuk]

to not join a good employer?

Do what?

A pedantic point but it's all part of understanding what are and what you should be doing. Your title should be the other dead give away.. you know, the CONTRACTor bit!

Once all this is history you need to go back to basics and understand what you are, who you deliver services to and start to do the basics right.

[northernladuk]

Let's pull it apart a little, just so you've a clue though...

a) is an employment agency that hired me on daily rate. No paperwork was done, other than signing criminal declaration.

Employment or recruitment. Just the pedantic point again. So these are the people you have a contract with and are the ones that pay you. This is the most important bit. No contract with these guys is a terrible situation to be in. Don't do it again.

(b) company I mainly work with on daily rate. No paperwork or contract was signed.

And this should be the case. They are clients of the agency, not you. They have an agreement between each other.

(c) company I work with at well through (b). (b) has a service contract with (c), and I was sent to work at (c) 80% of my timetable. No paperwork was signed by me, I get the same daily rate from (a).

And is how it should be. You don't get the same daily rate from a. The daily rate you get from a is all you get.

Now here it gets complicated. I decide to quit (b),although no paperwork or agreement was in place, I give them 1 week notice as a good will.

So another mistake. You don't have a contractual relationship with b as mentioned. You can give them a heads up out of courtesy but your contract is with (a). You give notice to (a) to terminate contract. (b) is just a courtesy to say you won't be carrying on.

When company (c) figures that, they offer me a job straight away.

Which they can't really do. There will be a handcuff between you and (a), there should be a handcuff between (a) and (b) and likely and anti poaching agreement between (b) and (c). If you'd gotten a contract with (a) you would see the handcuff and notice period. Nice and clean.

Now (b) is obv angry for two reasons and threaten to sue me if I take the job.

And it's likely they can. They are losing income due to you going to the client. This is the whole reason handcuffs and poaching agreements are in place.

1. Service agreement between (b) and (c), will not renew, because it was based on my CV and once (c) has me on board, they're not gonna need (b). (b) threatening to sue me for their loss of contract.

Which is where handcuffs come in again. (c) should never be able to poach you so this issue shouldn't have arisen.

2. (a) is gonna sue (b), because I get a job indirectly through (b). (a) intends to sue (b) for the commission and then (b) threatens to sue me again for their loss.

Yep, sounds about right. I'm surprised (a) isn't threatening to sue you as it's you that's breached contract going with the client of the client. You breached by going so it's you that should pay their loses.

Can someone please help here whether I can be sued and scared away to not join a good employer?

From what I see here, yes, you can be sued. It's pretty black and white. You are causing both (a) and (b) to suffer losses due to you going to the client so any handcuff would stand up. You would be in breach of contract and liable for losses. I assume the employer you are talking about is (c) and this is a permanent job you are talking about?

Major problem here is there is contract paperwork with the handcuff in it. You've an implied contract which is about as useful as the paper it is(n't) written on so christ knows what your legal position is. You are bang to rights of normal handcuffs but do they exist with an implied contract? Not a scooby.
That said, courts usually favour the party or parties that can demonstrate loss so I wouldn't like to be in your shoes.

The other thing that is more likely to happen is (C) decides with all the legal stuff flying around that it's just far too risky to take you on. No one is indispensable. We have seen it a few times that (c) want you so much they will either pay off the other parties which would be a great result or just tell them to foxtrot oscar which isn't a good result for you because you are still on the hook.

Got yourself in a right mess there.

[northernladuk]

P.S. I'd hate to start digging in to the IR35 position of all this.. I would be everything I have that there would be more bad news coming your way.

[WordIsBond]

He wants to work direct sir

Obviously.

And neither A nor B can do a thing about it if there's really no written contract. He can go direct and ignore them. They don't have a leg to stand on.

If there's an issue between B and C, that's for C to sort out. If there's an issue between A and B, they can get together and cry in their beer and console each other or fight or whatever, but they can't touch OP.

If there's a written contract after all and OP forgot it or something, that of course changes everything. But no written contract, no handcuffs, he can go direct if he wants and the end client wants him.

Chances are B might have a no poaching clause in their contract with C, but that's only a problem for OP if it scares off C from taking him on.

[omarkhan]

Obviously.

And neither A nor B can do a thing about it if there's really no written contract. He can go direct and ignore them. They don't have a leg to stand on.

If there's an issue between B and C, that's for C to sort out. If there's an issue between A and B, they can get together and cry in their beer and console each other or fight or whatever, but they can't touch OP.

If there's a written contract after all and OP forgot it or something, that of course changes everything. But no written contract, no handcuffs, he can go direct if he wants and the end client wants him.

Chances are B might have a no poaching clause in their contract with C, but that's only a problem for OP if it scares off C from taking him on.

I think that's the case. (b) are bluffing. When there is no documented contract, then there is an implied verbal contract and in my case that was, 'I work as XXXXX and I will receive XX amount per day'.

(a) can probably sue (b), that's for them to sort between them. But that leads on to question, can (b) sue me in this because they may have to pay (a) for their loss which was due to me leaving and joining another company?

In case of (b) and (c) I am aware there is no anti-poaching clause between the two companies. Besides, (c) did not persuade me to join them in first place, I decided to quit (b) and issued official notice to (a), as a courtesy I let (c) know that I won't be here next week, and that's the first time the spoke about working for them. Does that change anything?