The purpose of the UK Recruiter discussion board
is to give recruiters the opportunity to discuss issues relating to their jobs
and the recruitment industry in the UK.
Whilst providers of goods and services to the
industry are welcome to partake in the discussions they should not use this
forum for advertising.
Please read and adhere to the board's guidelines which you will see when you click to "start new topic"
|
| Reply To This Thread |
| Re: Clients Trying to avoid paying a fee |
| Author: | K |
| Date: | Thursday, 12th Mar 2009 16:17 |
| Views: | 140 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Fees and Terms of Business | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=178061 |
|
Hi,
You've signed Terms stating that CV's must go through the Vendor or fees wont be paid. And then you haven't gone through the Vendor.........
Irrespective of what the line manager said, you knew the process and ignored the agreement - just keeping the Vendor in the loop would have negated this.
K |
|
| Reply To This Thread |
| Re: Clients Trying to avoid paying a fee |
| Author: | Ruffski |
| Date: | Thursday, 12th Mar 2009 16:55 |
| Views: | 111 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Fees and Terms of Business | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=178061 |
|
Hi Tom,
Having ran a large scale RPO, I'd suggest that the Master Vendor is well within their rights as you have broken the contract you have with them by non-conformance of the contract, so yes their case would most likely stand up in court. Master Vendors put rules like this in place for a number of reasons, the main one being that as part of their contract with the end client, they manage and report on all resourcing activity, so the fact that you have dealt directly with the clients manager (Who's probably well aware that they shouldn't have dealt with you directly, but is probably unaware of the consequences to your business) has meant that the Master Vendor (RPO) now has to work hard to trace your direct activity in order to ensure their reporting is correct and that the clients budgets etc are not being overlooked.
I'm not being arrogant, but you really must ensure that when you agree to and sign a contract, you don't break it by not following simple processes which whilst to you may look like a waste of time, but to the Master Vendor and the client can make a huge difference in ensuring a quality service.
Best regards,
Ruffski |
|
| Reply To This Thread |
| Re: Clients Trying to avoid paying a fee |
| Author: | Stephen O'Donnell |
| Date: | Thursday, 12th Mar 2009 23:02 |
| Views: | 135 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Fees and Terms of Business | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=178061 |
|
Unfortunately you've gone behind the Master Vendor's back, and made them look bad. One of the key things about securing a MV agreement, is to retain control of the process, in order to present a consistently good image and service to the client. The client should have no idea that a candidate even originally came from another agency, as the MV is due all the credit.
The MV may even have been plugging their own candidate for this role, and would have held back your candidate, as there would be a split fee.
By doing this you've made the client aware that other agencies could fill these roles, and for the MV, that is unforgivable.
Don't get me wrong, I've bypassed MV's and HR departments before, but never broken a contract I've signed. To get some of the fee, I think you'll need to grovel big time. |
|
| Reply To This Thread |
| Re: Clients Trying to avoid paying a fee |
| Author: | Greig |
| Date: | Friday, 13th Mar 2009 13:50 |
| Views: | 121 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Fees and Terms of Business | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=178061 |
|
I think Tom's wording might be misleading and hopefully he can clarify. Is the term requiring candidates to be submitted via the Master Vendor in the contract between him and his client or is it in the contract between his client and the Master Vendor? If it's the former he's due nothing, if it's the latter then he's due his fee.
But I'm going to throw in a different perspective, partly because I like being controversial. ;)
First, I do understand and appreciate the importance of working with the master vendor where there's one in place. If Tom was required to do so and didn't then the master vendor is fully justified in withholding the fee. I think the business manager was probably aware that the master vendor needed to be involved too.
The problem is if the business manager bumps into the HR manager/CEO/other director one day, they get chatting and have a conversation which goes, "We've had some problems finding staff these past few months. We did have a good candidate from one recruiter but there was some dispute with the master vendor and now the that recruiter is unable/unwilling to send any more candidates." Value add will always trump rules and procedure.
Tom has circumvented the rules. I'm not disputing that. But I think the RPO involved could gain some value by giving him a slap across the wrists, making him promise not to do it again, paying at least part of his fee and if there's value in doing so go down the preferred supplier route.
What do others think?
Greig
TalentRevolt - UK IT, Engineering and Healthcare split fee recruitment exchange - http://www.talentrevolt.com |
|
| Reply To This Thread |
| Re: Clients Trying to avoid paying a fee |
| Author: | Mitch |
| Date: | Friday, 13th Mar 2009 14:12 |
| Views: | 97 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Fees and Terms of Business | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=178061 |
|
I agree with Greig.
I'd be surprised if an apology and an explanation of the extenuating circumstances don't resolve this. It's in everyone's best interests.
I've used the firm that Tom works for and their not a bad agency. |
|
| Reply To This Thread |
| Re: Clients Trying to avoid paying a fee |
| Author: | Tom |
| Date: | Friday, 13th Mar 2009 14:30 |
| Views: | 116 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Fees and Terms of Business | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=178061 |
|
To clarify some of the comments, and by the way, thanks to everyone for their comments so far. In this case the Master Vendor is a group company of the client in question. They were formed as an internal link between the client which has several businesses within the group and external agencies.
Incidentally, the client also has 2 agencies as part of their group companies. One exists to recruit solely for the group, one has been started up as an offshoot to recruit for the groups supply chain and anyone else they can.
The terms we have signed are with the internal Master Vendor. They do state at the top that they are terms for the group.
What worries me that in this case that the internal agency is getting involved yet according to the agreement, they should not even be aware of the dispute as the "Master Vendor" is supposed to be kept seperate from the internal agency and to deal with the internal agency alongside external suppliers.
It's messy I know, and once again, I am not disputing that we should have gone to the MV first (although they are telling us they have no vacancies).
Further develpments are that we have now received an email from the MD of the internal agency telling us that in addition to the group not recognising our introduction, our agreement in now terminated and we are blocked from sending future CV's to any part of the group.
If any further clarification is needed, please let me know |
|
| Reply To This Thread |
| Re: Clients Trying to avoid paying a fee |
| Author: | Tom |
| Date: | Friday, 13th Mar 2009 14:36 |
| Views: | 111 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Fees and Terms of Business | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=178061 |
|
one other point.......
When we arranged the interview, we asked the client whether we should contact the MV. He specifically told us not to. Of course he has now backtracked on this and said that he assumed we would follow the proper procedure anyway.
Personally I am not looking to maintain a relationship with this client as I am now fearful that our CV's are lining the database of their internal agencies anyway!!! |
|
| Reply To This Thread |
| Re: Clients Trying to avoid paying a fee |
| Author: | Paul |
| Date: | Friday, 13th Mar 2009 17:04 |
| Views: | 106 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Fees and Terms of Business | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=178061 |
|
Hang on. You have to conform to a process with the RPO when submitting candidates against job specs for vacancies which, I assume, the RPO has given you premission to work on as a feeder agency - is this correct?
The line manager interviewed your candidate 'on spec' and created a position for him/her - is this correct?
If so, it seems to me you could have a case for payment on this basis. As it may be outside the scope of the agreement.
However, it will depend on the exact wording of you agreement etc etc etc.
Also ask yourself how willing your are to lose general access to this client via the RPO.
|
|
| Reply To This Thread |
| Re: Clients Trying to avoid paying a fee |
| Author: | llkl |
| Date: | Friday, 13th Mar 2009 19:29 |
| Views: | 96 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Fees and Terms of Business | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=178061 |
|
still htere has been a supply of a product, so money should be paid. send the invoice to the client directly, ignoring vendor. See what happens once they receive the invoice.
In addition, the vendor will have a contract with the client, so that should be taken into consideration. ie maybe the client is allowed to do this....
|
|
| Reply To This Thread |
| Re: Clients Trying to avoid paying a fee |
| Author: | Roy Snart |
| Date: | Monday, 16th Mar 2009 15:54 |
| Views: | 108 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Fees and Terms of Business | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=178061 |
|
Hi Tom,
I've been in this situation before. You can still get your fee - especially as you aren't interested in the relationship anymore.
You are in breach of contract - but it will be regarded as a minor breach and one that was sanctioned by the other party when it took place.
Companies can have all the agreements they like but when they ask you to do something for them and it causes a breach, they can't rely on that breach to refuse payment.
They may squeak like hell - but in the end if you sue (based on what I've gathered here) you should get your money.
Roy
|
|
| Reply To This Thread |
Please note: The reply form is not showing because the posting is older than six months or the thread is locked. Please start a new topic or contact the forum administrator.
|
| -->
|
|
