Tags: attorney, below, california, contract, employees, employment, labor, law, lawyer, legal, period, quoti, second, starts, statement, temporary, termination

Temporary or Contract Employees California

On Lawyer & Legal » Employment & Labor Law

3,720 words with 8 Comments; publish: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 11:55:00 GMT; (80093.75, « »)

I would like to know if the second part of the statement below, which starts out,"I agree for a period of six (6) months after the termination of my assignment..." is legal and binding. At the end of the statement there is a check box befor the last sentence, which states, "I have read and agree to the agreement stated above." However, if you do not check this box, the system will not accept your timecard (we submit timecards online each week).

Shouldn't we be given the option of not agreeing to this statement?

I certify that these hours and dates are correct. I further certify that I suffered no injuries during this work period. I understand that if this assignment ends, it is my responsibility to contact the Company for reassignment. Failure to do so will be considered my voluntary resignation. I further understand that time sheets submitted after ninety (90) days will not be honored for payment. I agree for a period of six (6) months after the termination of my assignment that I will not provide my services to this client as an employee or contractor or as an employee of any other temporary or outsourcing service, without the prior written consent of (Company name was here, I took it out).

I have read and agree to the agreement stated above.

All Comments

Leave a comment...

  • 8 Comments
    • Why should they send you on assignment and let you work if you don't agree to the terms?
      #1; Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:03:00 GMT
    • In fact, I read it to say that you cannot work for another company that services your company's clients without written consent of your company. In other words, it is a non-compete clause.
      #2; Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:24:00 GMT
    • Actually, it does not say that you can't work for the company for six months. It says that you can't work for the company without written consent.
      #3; Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:48:00 GMT
    • It doesn't say they will not send us on another assignment. What it says is that we cannot work for the current employer or through any other agency for the current employer, for six months after our assignment ends. Which means, if they lose the contract with the current employer, we cannot work for this employer through the new agency they contract with.
      #4; Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:20:00 GMT
    • rjc, I would read this as a non-solicitation clause - she isn't allowed to work for a client of her current employer, not work in that field in general.

      Is it legal and binding? Maybe not, but it is in a temp agency's best interest to try very hard to enforce it. And even if they lose, so do you, since you will have to pay your lawyer, and the client that you would be working for is extremely likely to drop you like a hot potato.

      #5; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:04:00 GMT
    • Yes, they do. And very few cases get that far, becuase the plaintiff doesn't have the money to defend herself (especially if she gets fired from her new job, as often happens).
      #6; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:14:00 GMT
    • I read it as non-solicitation. He/she is agreeing to not go work directly for a current client for 6 months after leaving the current company. I don't read it as a non-compete at all. Basically the current company doesn't want their employees taking away their current customers if they leave.

      Unfortunately, my husband has been in differing contract situations over the years, so I know more than I wish I did. His last one was non-solicitation (and it went both ways from him to the company and from the client to the company). They spent months wrangling, but his company finally gave their blessing (with the understanding that they would still receive the same $ amount of consulting business from them within a certain time frame).

      rr

      #7; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:43:00 GMT
    • Upon further review (and persuasive opinion :) ), I would now agree it more accurately read as a non-solicit as opposed to a non-compete.

      Megan, is it your experience that CA courts are likely to be find non-solicit clauses valid and enforceable?

      #8; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:08:00 GMT