My client asked me to switch recruitment agency, can I do that?

[Lance]

Some agencies will pay you after 30 days or whenever even though they have 90-day terms with the client.

The fact the want you to down tools means they likely haven't been paid.

You need to have an honest conversation with the agent.

oxymoron alert

[LondonManc]

You need to have an honest chat with the hiring manager, in order to try and understand why this is happening.

"The agent has said you aren't paying them, but I've got a handcuff clause. I'm obviously concerned but feel between a rock and a hard place on this. Are you able to shed any more light on it?"

[cannon999]

You need to have an honest chat with the hiring manager, in order to try and understand why this is happening.

"The agent has said you aren't paying them, but I've got a handcuff clause. I'm obviously concerned but feel between a rock and a hard place on this. Are you able to shed any more light on it?"

The handcuff clause is irrelevant if the client isn't dealing with the agency. Just in general it is irrelevant to be honest, just a scary story that the agents use to scare contractors from going direct. They can usually be picked apart quite easily.

[northernladuk]

The handcuff clause is irrelevant if the client isn't dealing with the agency. Just in general it is irrelevant to be honest, just a scary story that the agents use to scare contractors from going direct. They can usually be picked apart quite easily.

Correct but there is a relationship between them, even if it's over non payment. It's messy. The client haven't attempted to terminate any agreement, they've asked the contractor to swap. That action in itself is pretty unusual so I've a feeling any professional advice given might not apply here. But still the client is still in contract, the agent hasn't been booted out so currently handcuff could still stand.
Very messy so don't think there is a quick answer to the situation.

I think just the threat of it is enough at the moment with so many unknowns in a complex situation.

[BlasterBates]

In my view the handcuff clause is untenable if the agent is expecting you to withdraw from the contract. It would be an abuse of the clause given they can no longer honour the contract. If you're worried take some advice from a lawyer, but the agent has a weak case. This is a dispute between the agency and the client.

However what you need to consider is that the client isn't paying the current agency so why would he pay the next agency.

[BlasterBates]

Correct but there is a relationship between them, even if it's over non payment. It's messy. The client haven't attempted to terminate any agreement, they've asked the contractor to swap. That action in itself is pretty unusual so I've a feeling any professional advice given might not apply here. But still the client is still in contract, the agent hasn't been booted out so currently handcuff could still stand.
Very messy so don't think there is a quick answer to the situation.

I think just the threat of it is enough at the moment with so many unknowns in a complex situation.

By pausing the contract, the agency is in effect in breach of contract. The payment dispute is nothing to do with the contactor. I would say the point at which the agency pauses the contract is when the handcuff clause ceases to be valid. Having said that it could be legally messy so the best options would be to either persuade the client to pay the agency or jump ship into a completely different contract.

[northernladuk]

By pausing the contract, the agency is in effect in breach of contract. The payment dispute is nothing to do with the contactor. I would say the point at which the agency pauses the contract is when the handcuff clause ceases to be valid. Having said that it could be legally messy so the best options would be to either persuade the client to pay the agency or jump ship into a completely different contract.

I'm not so sure that's true. Using that argument then every project where a cobtracote didn't get paid so rolled their sub contractors off would end up in court.
There is no obligation to provide work, bearing in mind the contract is with the agency so doesn't it apply to them? Normally client doesn't provide it but there is no relationship between he client and contractor so technically the agency passed that lack of work on? Its really always between contractor and agency. Just doesn't look like it.

[LondonManc]

The handcuff clause is irrelevant if the client isn't dealing with the agency. Just in general it is irrelevant to be honest, just a scary story that the agents use to scare contractors from going direct. They can usually be picked apart quite easily.

The client is dealing with the agent. This looks far from straightforward for the OP unfortunately.

[simes]

I've been on a contract via Recruitment agency for some time.

I've recently received an email from the agency that my contract is now paused because the client owes them significant amount of money. They said that it will be restarted when they receive all the money.

The client asked me to switch to different recruitment agency and continue to work with them and asked me to terminate my existing contract with the first recruiter.

However, the old recruitment agency told me that I can't work for the same client directly or via different recruitment agency.

It is also stated in the contract - my restricted period is 12 months.

What should I do?

Is it ok to carry on with the new recruitment agency?

What happens if the previous recruiter finds out, who will be liable, can they take me to the court and demand money?

Thank you.

Given the behaviour of the current agency and the state of the current market, I'd just get on with it and chance any outcome.

Defer the argument further down the line and maintain some income.

[northernladuk]

Given the behaviour of the current agency and the state of the current market, I'd just get on with it and chance any outcome.

Defer the argument further down the line and maintain some income.

Buy why do you think the agency is behaving like this. You've missed a key point as usual.