Recruitment Company Terms
Discussion
No doubt im being naive/inexperienced or just thick....but...I've worked from start-up to global corporate and read/signed/sort of written LOTS of contracts of all types (admittedly before all have been reviewed by a properly qualified person)
Have recently received some Ts&Cs from a recruitment company...and some of the terms are, in my view, totally unacceptable.
But having now seen terms from 3 of said outfits, they have much in common.
The main clauses I think, personally, are unsignable:
"An introduction shall be deemed to have taken place when xxxx Recruitment provides to the Client any information which identifies a candidate, whether or not the candidate was known previously by the Client." (follows pervious clause which outlies a 12 month period for this)
>>er....so any CV you send over, irrespective or whether its relevant or not, becomes your property for 12 months??? even if its my mate Ive known since school, or someone you sent in for a tea boy role who we randomly empoy 11 months later as a valeter??
"xxxx Recruitment does not personally obtain references pertaining to a particular candidate. xxxx Recruitment takes no responsibility for any loss, damage or delay caused by the candidate. The Client is responsible for ensuring the suitability and capability of a candidate for employment and for taking references to verify skills, qualifications, integrity, the necessity of any work permits and the satisfaction of any medical requirements."
>> we wont guarantee you aren't employing a crim, or a liar, or anything else at all in fact
Is this sort of thing really standard in this industry and do other happily sign this?
Just wondered really. sorry probably really dull!
Cheers
Night
Have recently received some Ts&Cs from a recruitment company...and some of the terms are, in my view, totally unacceptable.
But having now seen terms from 3 of said outfits, they have much in common.
The main clauses I think, personally, are unsignable:
"An introduction shall be deemed to have taken place when xxxx Recruitment provides to the Client any information which identifies a candidate, whether or not the candidate was known previously by the Client." (follows pervious clause which outlies a 12 month period for this)
>>er....so any CV you send over, irrespective or whether its relevant or not, becomes your property for 12 months??? even if its my mate Ive known since school, or someone you sent in for a tea boy role who we randomly empoy 11 months later as a valeter??
"xxxx Recruitment does not personally obtain references pertaining to a particular candidate. xxxx Recruitment takes no responsibility for any loss, damage or delay caused by the candidate. The Client is responsible for ensuring the suitability and capability of a candidate for employment and for taking references to verify skills, qualifications, integrity, the necessity of any work permits and the satisfaction of any medical requirements."
>> we wont guarantee you aren't employing a crim, or a liar, or anything else at all in fact
Is this sort of thing really standard in this industry and do other happily sign this?
Just wondered really. sorry probably really dull!
Cheers
Night
Just issue your own terms - those who want to do business in a reasonable manner sign them, the rest generally aren't worth dealing with.
The clause about introductions is quite comedic - just send the details of everyone on the database to every company in the UK, then sit back and watch the cash roll in...
The clause about introductions is quite comedic - just send the details of everyone on the database to every company in the UK, then sit back and watch the cash roll in...
10 Pence Short said:
On the first clause, how would you protect yourself in their shoes? Surely if you already knew a candidate and thought them potentially appropriate, you'd have found them without the recruitment company's services?
Hiya - yeah I imagine that it's a nightmare of an industry from the standpoint of people using you to find candidates and then trying to get them employed without paying the deserved fee.....but theres a limit......My experience of using them previously is that they are often very good at sending in CVs which are 'in the general area' If I am looking for a C++ developer, and the agency sends in designers, then ill be damned if in 11 months time I entirely independently look for designers, a CV comes in from another route entirely, and then the agency claim prior ownership when they should never have sent the designer CV in the first place.....
I owned and managed a recruitment agency for 23 years. Our terms had similar clauses to those you mention, thats fairly normal. The point is that they are not necessarily enforceable. Say for example the agency sent you a CV but you did interview or employ that person. Then a few months later the same candidate responds to your own advert or applies thru another agent. In that case the advert or 2nd agent would be deemed to be the 'effective cause'.
As others have said, fairly standard terms these days.
The first point regarding the introduction clause; there is very little chance the agency would enforce this were you to hire a previous applicant 10/11 months down the line. It will be in there to stop employers rejecting an agency applicant and then approaching them privately in order to avoid the agency fee.
Likewise it would also work as a 'first dibs' clause, were a applicant put forward by two different agencies. The first to get the CV in is the agency that claims the fee. Hence why to tend to get a 'spray n pray' effect when dealing with agencies and potential applicants.
The second point is to protect the agency from the first point. Agencies don't tend to specialise in particular fields, therefore, if they put forward and applicant for a bomb disposal role, it is down to the employer to check his technical ability/background, as the recruiter won't have a clue if the applicant is any good at this role.
Most Ts&Cs these days are all encompassing to cover all eventualities.
The first point regarding the introduction clause; there is very little chance the agency would enforce this were you to hire a previous applicant 10/11 months down the line. It will be in there to stop employers rejecting an agency applicant and then approaching them privately in order to avoid the agency fee.
Likewise it would also work as a 'first dibs' clause, were a applicant put forward by two different agencies. The first to get the CV in is the agency that claims the fee. Hence why to tend to get a 'spray n pray' effect when dealing with agencies and potential applicants.
The second point is to protect the agency from the first point. Agencies don't tend to specialise in particular fields, therefore, if they put forward and applicant for a bomb disposal role, it is down to the employer to check his technical ability/background, as the recruiter won't have a clue if the applicant is any good at this role.
Most Ts&Cs these days are all encompassing to cover all eventualities.
in short, these are pretty standard.
You need to remember that an applicant wont just use one RC, they will use several. Which is why they say if they made the introduction, they get paid the commission. But also, you would be amazed at the number of companies who say "your candidate is not good enough", only to then make an offer directly i.e cut out the RC, after they have sourced the candiate for you.
Generally RC's wont obtain a reference for you, they cant! What if a candidate is working for company X and looking around for a job. Obviously they need to keep this quiet! Once interviews and offers have taken place, that's when company Y (the hiring company) ask for references. (unless of course the candidate is already out of a job)
You need to remember that an applicant wont just use one RC, they will use several. Which is why they say if they made the introduction, they get paid the commission. But also, you would be amazed at the number of companies who say "your candidate is not good enough", only to then make an offer directly i.e cut out the RC, after they have sourced the candiate for you.
Generally RC's wont obtain a reference for you, they cant! What if a candidate is working for company X and looking around for a job. Obviously they need to keep this quiet! Once interviews and offers have taken place, that's when company Y (the hiring company) ask for references. (unless of course the candidate is already out of a job)
thanks for the feedback everyone
Yeah - I can well believe people will do anything to cut out the duly deserved fee - but as we're not like that at all some of it grates a little
to be fair, the agency have capitulated on every point raised with the exception of the 'warranting the person' - which is fair enough and understandable once clarified a bit.
good attitude from them, so we'll be working them which is nice.
re: enforcement after 11 months. this is exactly what is happening to a friends company - an agency are trying to claim a fee from them for someone recruited for a totally different job and having got the CV from a direct send in response to an advert. they had no idea said agency had actually sent the CV of this person 11 months previously, for a completely unsuitable job, as it was binned by their HR 'CV sifter' before anyone saw it. Agency are still trying to claim a £5k fee. has made me more cautious!
Yeah - I can well believe people will do anything to cut out the duly deserved fee - but as we're not like that at all some of it grates a little
to be fair, the agency have capitulated on every point raised with the exception of the 'warranting the person' - which is fair enough and understandable once clarified a bit.
good attitude from them, so we'll be working them which is nice.
re: enforcement after 11 months. this is exactly what is happening to a friends company - an agency are trying to claim a fee from them for someone recruited for a totally different job and having got the CV from a direct send in response to an advert. they had no idea said agency had actually sent the CV of this person 11 months previously, for a completely unsuitable job, as it was binned by their HR 'CV sifter' before anyone saw it. Agency are still trying to claim a £5k fee. has made me more cautious!
A bloke I worked with had his CV sent in by 2 agencies, and the d
head HR manager, got one agency to send him for interview, and then when he wanted to offer him the job, got confused and then phoned the other agency, and then had to pay 2 commissions.
Worse still, when the poor lad, a graduate mechanical engineer, came to his 6 month review and his 12 month review, they refused to give him a pay rise, from his st starting salary, in order to make up financially for the GR mangers mistake. Having got a years experience under his belt, he found a new job and a 30% rise, so they had to pay again to replace him.
head HR manager, got one agency to send him for interview, and then when he wanted to offer him the job, got confused and then phoned the other agency, and then had to pay 2 commissions. Worse still, when the poor lad, a graduate mechanical engineer, came to his 6 month review and his 12 month review, they refused to give him a pay rise, from his s
t starting salary, in order to make up financially for the GR mangers mistake. Having got a years experience under his belt, he found a new job and a 30% rise, so they had to pay again to replace him. Nightmare said:
thanks for the feedback everyone
Yeah - I can well believe people will do anything to cut out the duly deserved fee - but as we're not like that at all some of it grates a little
to be fair, the agency have capitulated on every point raised with the exception of the 'warranting the person' - which is fair enough and understandable once clarified a bit.
good attitude from them, so we'll be working them which is nice.
re: enforcement after 11 months. this is exactly what is happening to a friends company - an agency are trying to claim a fee from them for someone recruited for a totally different job and having got the CV from a direct send in response to an advert. they had no idea said agency had actually sent the CV of this person 11 months previously, for a completely unsuitable job, as it was binned by their HR 'CV sifter' before anyone saw it. Agency are still trying to claim a £5k fee. has made me more cautious!
Your friend needs to be clear on what the effective cause of the employment of the person was, ie the direct application to a separate role and that the agency should have been notified of rejection at the time for that other role. Yeah - I can well believe people will do anything to cut out the duly deserved fee - but as we're not like that at all some of it grates a little
to be fair, the agency have capitulated on every point raised with the exception of the 'warranting the person' - which is fair enough and understandable once clarified a bit.
good attitude from them, so we'll be working them which is nice.
re: enforcement after 11 months. this is exactly what is happening to a friends company - an agency are trying to claim a fee from them for someone recruited for a totally different job and having got the CV from a direct send in response to an advert. they had no idea said agency had actually sent the CV of this person 11 months previously, for a completely unsuitable job, as it was binned by their HR 'CV sifter' before anyone saw it. Agency are still trying to claim a £5k fee. has made me more cautious!
If this is the case direct them to Law Staff Legal Recruitment Limited v Just Costs Limited for a clear precedent involving a much shorter time period
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 4th March 20:17
wsurfa said:
If this is the case direct them to Law Staff Legal Recruitment Limited v Just Costs Limited for a clear precedent involving a much shorter time period
Just read about that case. The owner of Law Staff used to work for me. He should never have started the case against Just Costs, I bet he ended up paying theirs and his own legal fees. Edited by wsurfa on Tuesday 4th March 20:17
Our terms read that an interview arranged through us is acknowledgement of the introduction, however we are looking at ways of tightening it up as unfortunately we've had a few instances where we have submitted the CV of a candidate who has not spoken to our "client" and then the HR have connected with them through Linkedin, dug their details out of their own database or found someone who knows them from 5 years ago where they worked together at a separate company.
Linkedin is the one that makes it really easy though, and this sort of behaviour has dramatically increased in line with Linkedin's popularity.
As per above I seriously doubt that they would get anywhere with that in court if it really was as simple as blasting you a load of CVs and billing you for anyone you hired - but I guess they're trying to forestall you receiving a CV from them for a specific role and you thinking "that's a good idea!" and looking the candidate up on Linkedin.
Lastly, in my experience terms and conditions can say all sorts, and while good, clear ones help if things do go wrong, they are absolutely no substitute for working with people who trust each other and play "fair."
Linkedin is the one that makes it really easy though, and this sort of behaviour has dramatically increased in line with Linkedin's popularity.
As per above I seriously doubt that they would get anywhere with that in court if it really was as simple as blasting you a load of CVs and billing you for anyone you hired - but I guess they're trying to forestall you receiving a CV from them for a specific role and you thinking "that's a good idea!" and looking the candidate up on Linkedin.
Lastly, in my experience terms and conditions can say all sorts, and while good, clear ones help if things do go wrong, they are absolutely no substitute for working with people who trust each other and play "fair."
AJS- said:
Our terms read that an interview arranged through us is acknowledgement of the introduction, however we are looking at ways of tightening it up as unfortunately we've had a few instances where we have submitted the CV of a candidate who has not spoken to our "client" and then the HR have connected with them through Linkedin, dug their details out of their own database or found someone who knows them from 5 years ago where they worked together at a separate company.
"
You need to tighten those terms pdq."
Nightmare said:
. this is exactly what is happening to a friends company - an agency are trying to claim a fee from them for someone recruited for a totally different job and having got the CV from a direct send in response to an advert. they had no idea said agency had actually sent the CV of this person 11 months previously, for a completely unsuitable job, as it was binned by their HR 'CV sifter' before anyone saw it. Agency are still trying to claim a £5k fee. has made me more cautious!
That is an extraordinary situation and I am very surprised the agency is chasing a fee if the story is exactly as you say.I would also be surprised if a court would enforce it.
As to the severity of the terms you highlighted, many agencies take their terms directly from the REC (the leading recruitment organisation) and they all say similar.
As you mention, once the reasons are explained in detail it is completely understandable. Particularly when you mentioned "sending a crim" and similar. It is a myth that you have a right to CRB check someone who is not working with vulnerable people. There is just no way you could ever be that comprehensive in your checks.
The difference between agencies is how reasonable they are in enforcing them. A commmonsense approach is usually taken towards them and courts would not entertain taking them to the extreme.
As comments above they are pretty standard and are based on the Recruitment & Employment Confederation (their standard advise terms for agencies) basically to protect the recruiter from a complany taking candidate on direct after introduction.
One suggestion I have offered to clients is to reduce it to 6 months rather than 12.
One suggestion I have offered to clients is to reduce it to 6 months rather than 12.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff