Can anyone point me at the legislation that allegedly exists to prevent temporary workers from working at the same client through a competitor within a 13 week period please? I have not been able to find anything online. Is this just some gentleman’s agreement between agencies or… ?
Suddenly I feel useful 
I’m 95% sure that this is a gentleman’s agreement, the only exception being if it is written in the agency terms and conditions / agreement with the client.
All agencies will have in place an extortionate fee for the client to pay should they employ you directly after having been introduced (as in, you’ve worked a shift / interviewed with) without agreeing a fee with the agency, but it’s unlikely there is anything to prohibit a driver working in the same client through two different agencies.*
You will find however, that most clients will honour this gentleman’s agreement too. Largely depends on their relationship with the agencies in question.
- Didn’t explain that very well, but the 13 week embargo largely relates to the Agency Workers Regulations - Agency workers guidance for employers - Personnel Today - sure there’s lots on there to help.
Rob K:
Can anyone point me at the legislation that allegedly exists to prevent temporary workers from working at the same client through a competitor within a 13 week period please? I have not been able to find anything online. Is this just some gentleman’s agreement between agencies or… ?
Nothing stops you BUT,
They would have to give you the same rights as full time workers…So they wont
FreddieSwan:
Suddenly I feel usefulI’m 95% sure that this is a gentleman’s agreement, the only exception being if it is written in the agency terms and conditions / agreement with the client.
Right, I see. I didn’t consider it from that angle. Hmm, that does indeed make it rather risky then. Does the “introduction” fee also apply if another agency puts you into the same client or does it only apply to the client if they employ you? If Trucknet Recruitment had had me in at ABC Haulage at £11/hr but then I discovered that Fred Swan Recruitment would accept my £12/hr charge, would Fred Swan be able to put me in at ABC the following day without any repercussions?
All agencies will have in place an extortionate fee for the client to pay should they employ you directly after having been introduced (as in, you’ve worked a shift / interviewed with) without agreeing a fee with the agency, but it’s unlikely there is anything to prohibit a driver working in the same client through two different agencies.*
You will find however, that most clients will honour this gentleman’s agreement too. Largely depends on their relationship with the agencies in question.
- Didn’t explain that very well, but the 13 week embargo largely relates to the Agency Workers Regulations - Agency workers guidance for employers - Personnel Today - sure there’s lots on there to help.
Can you point me at the specific part of the AWR where this is mentioned please. I’m not finding anything in the link provided.
3 wheeler:
Rob K:
Can anyone point me at the legislation that allegedly exists to prevent temporary workers from working at the same client through a competitor within a 13 week period please? I have not been able to find anything online. Is this just some gentleman’s agreement between agencies or… ?Nothing stops you BUT,
They would have to give you the same rights as full time workers…So they wont
Thanks, but that doesn’t apply in this particular scenario.
Rob K:
Right, I see. I didn’t consider it from that angle. Hmm, that does indeed make it rather risky then. Does the “introduction” fee also apply if another agency puts you into the same client or does it only apply to the client if they employ you? If Trucknet Recruitment had had me in at ABC Haulage at £11/hr but then I discovered that Fred Swan Recruitment would accept my £12/hr charge, would Fred Swan be able to put me in at ABC the following day without any repercussions?
I very much doubt there’s a clause in which the client would be liable to another agency supplying the same driver. I’ve certainly never come across it as a problem although it does happen. Normally the client will just favour one agency over the other and be frank about it. Technically, there’s not a lot Trucknet Recruitment could do if you said “Sorry but I’m going to drive for Fred Swan, he can pay a better rate” - despite who the client is.
From the driver’s perspective, there’s no repercussions whatsoever.
Rob K:
Can you point me at the specific part of the AWR where this is mentioned please. I’m not finding anything in the link provided.
The ‘penalty fee’ if you like isn’t part of the AWR itself. It’s just something that agencies have always enforced, but the 12-13 week period is agreed because that’s the timeline that the AWR dictates - just simplifies things.
If I were to place a driver on a temp-to-perm, the maximum length of time I charge for is 13 weeks, purely to avoid any complications with AWR.
Right, I see. I didn’t consider it from that angle. Hmm, that does indeed make it rather risky then. Does the “introduction” fee also apply if another agency puts you into the same client or does it only apply to the client if they employ you? If Trucknet Recruitment had had me in at ABC Haulage at £11/hr but then I discovered that Fred Swan Recruitment would accept my £12/hr charge, would Fred Swan be able to put me in at ABC the following day without any repercussions?
There would be no repercussions and there isn’t a law stating that it can’t be done.
If you were working for Trucknet recruitment who offered you a days work on Monday at ABC, you take it. Monday afternoon at 2pm Fred Swan offers you work at ABC on Tuesday, you take it because you don’t know if Trucknet will call. You could call Trucknet and ask, but they may have their favourite driver who gets the job first…so leaving you possibly with no work…so you take what is first. As long as ABC have no issue with this then you will be ok, but they won’t as it is them who are using more than one agency which causes this scenario.
Like others in this thread I’m reasonably sure there is no legislation on this issue.
I worked at one company a few years ago where they put into place a company rule that you could not work for an agency within six months of working there for a different agency.
This was a few years ago when drivers had more job choice, the agencies were all charging the company different rates and also paying the drivers different rates, as you can imagine the drivers all wanted to work for the best paying agency who were also the most expensive agency for the company to use, hence the six month rule.
I’ve never noticed any restrictions over the same client with different agencies tendering out the work. Tends to go to the agency who can get that phone call in first, and fill it first - rather than the better hourly rate, that might only come into play on last-minute booked work.
On the subject of “Taking a full time job” at a yard where you’ve been in there on agency - I believe the agency will try and get a finders fee for placing one of “their” drivers into a full time post with the client.
I’ve often wondered how this is enforced for billing purposes myself…
So far, I’ve only experienced it the other way around - ie “used to work there” or “appied for a full time job there” but now I’m just banging away via agency.
How does the process of “Being offered a full time job by the client yard” actually work when you’re in there on agency already? 
There’s also an argument that suggest that “Since an agency driver is on parity pay after 13 solid weeks at the same yard, it is of no loss to the client to offer the driver a permenant contract at that point” since NOT offering them one doesn’t save them any money any longer. - IF the agency rate is lower than the full time rate of course.
Winseer:
I’ve often wondered how this is enforced for billing purposes myself…
So far, I’ve only experienced it the other way around - ie “used to work there” or “appied for a full time job there” but now I’m just banging away via agency.How does the process of “Being offered a full time job by the client yard” actually work when you’re in there on agency already?
There’s also an argument that suggest that “Since an agency driver is on parity pay after 13 solid weeks at the same yard, it is of no loss to the client to offer the driver a permenant contract at that point” since NOT offering them one doesn’t save them any money any longer. - IF the agency rate is lower than the full time rate of course.
With respect to your first question, often firms use to cover a new vacancy whilst recruiting themselves. If the agency are on the money, they’ll send in the perfect candidate to fill that vacancy, even without being fully aware that it could lead to a perm position. Whether the agency know it’s going to be a temp-to-perm or not is down to the relationship with the client. I had one that was using a preferred agency so we were just covering a shift or two a week, but they asked for one of our drivers back for a full week. That turned into an 8-week temp to perm agreement because their night shunter had retired. He’s still there now and does the occasional weekend job for us which the client (his full time employers) are aware of and more than happy with.
If you were approached directly by the client after doing say, a week’s work, and they wanted you to start ASAP but not inform the agency; it’s down to the agency to find out if you’re working there or not and then enforce what’s known as a “Transfer Fee”. Given it’s in a signed contract, it’s legally binding and will hold up in court if necessary. Agencies generally charge a ridiculous 500% fee or something similar to deter firms from doing it, and most of the time they’ll be honest, or appreciate they’ve been caught out and just pay the standard fee - can’t say it does a lot for relationships though!
The AWR is in place to encourage more full time employment as opposed to long-term placements, certainly. There are however, plenty of ways around it, including avoiding pay parity. The most common is what’s known as “Swedish Derogation”, in which the client agrees to offer a certain number of hours per week to the driver that’s been in there for 13 weeks. Doesn’t mean you’ll be on pay parity if you are being paid less however, just means you’re guaranteed an offer of work. The problem is, if they ring you first thing on a Sunday morning and ask you to be available that day, and you’re not, they’re upholding their side of the Swedish Derogation by offering you the hours (if it was 8 for example).
Most of the time, clients will either agree pay parity and keep the driver employed as regularly as possible (I have two cases of this in my current branch, both have been in the same companies for ~4 years) or just take them on full time. As for their reasons not to take them on? Your guess is as good as mine, if not better.
Hmm interesting. Nice post answer there.
Long term, I can imagine myself picking up a regular temp-perm contract monday-friday and getting a shift in every other weekend for example, to keep my hand in at the agency. A perm contract wouldn’t get expenses payable anymore, but if the perm job involves working out of two locations, and the agency weekend job from a third, then I think I’d still qualify for continuing subsistence and mileage?
As for “the other way around” argument - I found myself in the rather daft scenario of working out of a yard via agency, then failing an assessment there when applying for a job there… I’ve now decided to remove myself from that yard, because if I’m not good enough to get a full time job, then how can I be good enough for agency? 
Hourly rates were crap anyway, and I didn’t find that out until interview stage, so it’s not as if I’m licking my wounds over the whole experience. 
I want to get on in life - that means trying to get the optimum amount of pay for a confortable number of hours. It’s what we should all be trying to achieve for our families, but some of the stuff I read on here would have us believe that it’s right and proper to “work harder, longer, and for less.” 
Not me though. 
Rob K:
Can anyone point me at the legislation that allegedly exists to prevent temporary workers from working at the same client through a competitor within a 13 week period please? I have not been able to find anything online. Is this just some gentleman’s agreement between agencies or… ?
No such thing exists. Agencies don’t want you to work more than 12 weeks with one company because then you’re entitled to the same pay and other conditions as that company’s employees.
What some agencies do is invoke the Swedish Derogation to get around it however they have to pay you when there’s no work but you in return can’t turn work down.
FreddieSwan:
If I were to place a driver on a temp-to-perm, the maximum length of time I charge for is 13 weeks, purely to avoid any complications with AWR.
Its a pity for you then that the period is actually 12 weeks…