Non-Solicitation/Non-Compete clause on temp-to-perm contract & timesheet?

[sanity]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

Hello,

I have been offered a temp-to-perm position in New York through a recruiting agency based in New York.

However, when I went to the recruiting agency to sign my contract, I was surprised to see a non-solicitation clause effective during employment and for one year after termination. I asked them to remove it, and one of the company owners struck it out using a pen and initialed right next to it. I was wondering if this is sufficient to remove a term from a contract ?

My other question is, they have provided me with timesheet forms that I'll be using to report my hours during the temp period in the first 3 months. The forms have non-compete phrase once again in the back. At the front, a sentence says my signature implies agreeing to the terms in the back.

The recruiting agency say those are standard contracts and timesheet forms which they provide to all employees (fixed contract consultants and temp-to-perm). However, I obviously cannot sign on any form that restricts me from being a full-time permanent employee which is the nature of position I'm seeking. So, I just wanted to know what the best option is to resolve this without a being a pain in the back, should I just inform them that I will strike through the term in the back before signing and mailing the timesheet ? Is that sufficient to legally show that I did not agree to the term ?

Thank you!What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[swalsh411]

First of all without reading the complete non-compete nobody could tell you for sure if it's even binding in the first place. Courts generally take a very dim view on agreements that limit the ability of a person to make a living. As a general rule, as long as you're not soliciting customers, stealing trade secrets, or at an executive level you can go work for a competitor.

Even if the agreement was binding this temp agency is sending you on this assignment knowing it's temp to perm. The non-compete wouldn't apply to the company you are temping at. (and hopefully will be hired at).

 

[sanity]

Hi,

Thanks for your reply. Yes, the temp agency knows its a temp-to-perm position and that's how they advertised it on the job board and I have also checked with the hiring manager during the interview.

The non-compete that was struck out read as follows:
"The Hourly Employee agrees that during the term of, and for one year following the termination of employment, they will not directly o indirectly solicit, provide services to, be employed by, or form any contractual relationship with any Client to which the Hourly Employee has provided services, directly through X or through a third party, without the express written permission of X."

As far as the fine print on the backside of the timesheet:
"In consideration of my hiring and employment by X, I agree not to accept employment directly or indirectly whether full-time or part-time with any Client of X to whom I assigned and for a period of one-hundred eighty (180) days following completion of any assignment with the Client not to accept assignment to work for such Client either on its premises or as the employee of a third-party within the City or Town in which the specific work site to which I am assigned and X is located"

Thanks again,

 

[pattytx]

With a temp-to-perm assignment, the client WOULD work the deal through the agency and they WOULD "give their permission". That's the whole idea of a temp-to-hire.

 

[sanity]

With a temp-to-perm assignment, the client WOULD work the deal through the agency and they WOULD "give their permission". That's the whole idea of a temp-to-hire.

pattytx, thanks for the reply!

It would have made sense to have this restriction on the client-agency contract.
In any case, I will not sign on that restriction, I have been a victim of recruiting agencies tricks before and I want to completely protect myself. My question is, is it sufficient to strike through that term before signing and mailing the timesheet to show my disapproval of that term ?

Thanks again

 

[pattytx]

You don't sign it, they don't have to place you.

 

[sanity]

You don't sign it, they don't have to place you.

Thanks for your opinion but the recruiting company and I are in agreement on this, there's no fight happening here, they agree that I don't have to sign on that term. My question is simply, is it legally sufficient to strike through a term with a pen before signing on a contract to indicate my disapproval of that term ?

 

[eerelations]

If the recruiting agency agrees with you so much on this, then you'll have no problem getting that agreement in writing from them.

 

[sanity]

If the recruiting agency agrees with you so much on this, then you'll have no problem getting that agreement in writing from them.

eerelations, thanks a lot for your reply. yeah, they've already struck out that term that in the contract, but they have pre-printed timesheet forms which they provide to all of their employees regardless of the position nature, at the back side there's that sentence again, and I don't want to be too demanding and ask for special timesheets, so I was wondering if it is legally sufficient to just strike that sentence out using a pen ?

 

[eerelations]

...so I was wondering if it is legally sufficient to just strike that sentence out using a pen ?

Probably not, which is precisely why I suggested you get something in writing from the recruitment firm saying they will accept such a strike out.

 

[You Are Guilty]

If you are going to redline the part(s) you don't like, at the very minimum, both you and the agency need to initial each "change". (And even this is not a guarantee, but at least it is something.)

 

[sanity]

Understood, Thanks a lot eerelations & You Are Guilty !!