How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Ash Your Own Question
Ash
Ash, Solicitor
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 10916
Experience:  Solicitor with 5+ years experience
75100385
Type Your Law Question Here...
Ash is online now

FAO Alex Watts, Alex In 2010 we agreed in writing

Resolved Question:

FAO Alex Watts, Hello Alex
In 2010 we agreed in writing with a Labour Agency that if we have a resource for more than 3 months then we could take them on in a “permanent position” without any fee.
There is now a debate. The agency is saying that “permanent position” means directly employed and we are saying that this means engaged by us in a ‘permanent position’ at the site they have worked on for the last 10 years and not working anywhere else ie permanent position for that site. In this instance they may not necessarily be employed as being directly on pour payroll but engaged by us through their own limited company that will ‘contract’ to us.
The above was based on the fact that several engineers were actually introduced by us to the agency as it suited the way we needed to operate at the time.
For other engineers the agreement is that after being engaged by us for 5 months we could take them on as “Permanent employment” without incurring a fee.
The agency are saying that for 2 of the individuals on the list associated with “permanent position” that the paragraph actually refers to “Permanent employment”
I organised for this for this agreement to be put in place in 2010 as it suited the way we needed to operate. Since 2010 we have not engaged anyone based on the content of the agreement. This is the first instance, and so the first time we have come across this issue raised by the Agency. I guess it could be argued that a permanent position = permanent employment, but that is not what was meant at the time, hence the 2 different paragraphs dealing with 2 different sets of circumstances. As you can see we did not define what was meant by these terms.
Does the Agency have the basis of a reasonable argument to put forward that the agreement below is based on giving an engineer a status of permanent employment?
The agreement as emailed by the Agency is copied below:
The following engineers currently work for Zircom Data Communications Ltd on a contract basis through Fusion People Ltd.
I can confirm that there will be no introductory fee payable by Zircom Data Communications Ltd to Fusion People Ltd should you decide to offer any of the following engineers a permanent position, on the understanding that the engineer remains on contract for a further 3 months from today’s date with Fusion People Ltd.
Current Engineers:
***** *****
Steven Belcher
John Howells
Paul Lester
David Wattass
Scott Pratt
Stuart Newton
Future engineers
I can confirm that there will also be no introductory fee payable by Zircom Data Communications Ltd to Fusion People Ltd should you decide to offer any future contract engineers permanent employment with Zircom Data Communications Ltd once they have completed 5 months continuous work through Fusion People Ltd.
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Ash replied 1 year ago.
Hello and thanks for asking for me. In the contract is there a definition of permenant ?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

No its just a simple email form the agency with the wording as above.

Pete

Expert:  Ash replied 1 year ago.
I assume you are the employer and dont want to pay the fee?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

Yes. I introduced 4 of the engineers originally to the Agency and hence a different set of circumstances for the named individuals within the email as opposed to future engineers to be found by the agency.

Expert:  Ash replied 1 year ago.
On the basis there is no definition of what permenant is I don't think you need to pay the fee.This is because it should have been defined and it has not been, this is poor drafting of the agreement. Unless there is anything in writing that says directly employed is part of the contract and what means permenant then I can't see how they can say that.It's a poorly worded contract and you can't be blamed for that.Can I clairfy anything for you about this today please?Alex
Ash and 4 other Law Specialists are ready to help you