Consumer Law, Warranties Conflict between verbal/written offer and final contract

[johninbigd]

I am a consultant who is doing contract work for a recruiter. My current contract is a contract-to-hire position. When I first heard about this job, the recruiter sent me documentation that said there would be a 10% on-hire bonus when I converted to full-time. We even discussed it several times verbally. When I got the offer sheet from the employer, it did not mention the 10% on-hire bonus. When I asked about it, they said they knew nothing about it and that was not part of the deal.

I went back to the recruiter and asked if that was something they were going to pay me, but they're saying that it was a mistake that should not have been on their documentation. It is not in the actual contract I signed, so I'm sure that's what they're going to fall back on. But I thought the contract was only referring to the hourly wage the recruiter would pay me during the contract period. I was under the impression that my new employer would pay the bonus when I was hired, so I didn't even notice that it was missing from the recruiter's contract with me.

So, they're saying that it was a mistake and I think they're going to say that since it wasn't in the actual contract I signed, they don't have to pay it despite the documentation showing that it was part of the deal and despite verbal in-person discussions where this was mentioned.

I'm guessing that since it wasn't in the contract I signed, they'll have a way out. But is that true? Is there any way I can hold them to this or am I out of luck?

For clarity, I didn't expect it to be in the contract because I thought the contract was between me and the recruiter and that the on-hire bonus would be coming from the new employer after they hire me. I'm really wondering if the recruiter has any responsibility for misrepresenting the total package. Even if there is no legal obligation, I would think they have a moral obligation to make sure I receive the compensation they told me I would receive. Then again, I'm sure their lawyers couldn't care less about anything but the legal obligation.

What do you think?

 

[army judge]

Lawyers don't care about anything. Wrong! This isn't about what lawyers care about.

It's about what you signed. You're stuck with the contract you signed. You should have addressed this before you signed the contract.

Now that you've signed the contract, that is what you'll receive. You'll receive what the contract reveals. If you receive less, the contract has been violated.

But, what you call a contract is more than likely an offer letter. Very few US workers, especially contractors, work under contracts. Nevertheless, you should receive what is indicated in the contract.

 

[johninbigd]

Let me provide a bit more detail that most likely won't change your answer, but perhaps it will provide some more clarity.

I was looking for a job and found one being handled by a recruiting company to work for what I'll call CompanyC. It was a 90-day contract-to-hire position. During the contract period the recruiting company would be paying me because CompanyC was paying them. Once the contract was up, CompanyC is hiring me full-time. The contract was between me and the recruiting company. Since I was under the impression that CompanyC was going to be paying the on-hire bonus, it didn't occur to me to make sure that was on the contract. The contract covered my hourly wage during the contract period.

However, let's back up a couple of steps. When the recruiter first contacted me, she sent me the details of the position via email. It very explicitly states that there is a 10% on-hire bonus. She and I discussed this on the phone and in person. It turns out that this is a mistake, but it was part of reason I took this position. My assumption was that legally I have no standing and that I'm out of luck, but I wanted to verify that. They realize that it wasn't in the contract, but they also admit that it was part of the package as presented to me by the person that was handling me.

It appears I'm out of luck, but I wanted to make sure. I'm not a lawyer, so I didn't know if the written and verbal communications had any bearing.

 

[johninbigd]

Also, I'm not sure if the terminology is important here. I just checked my "contract" and it is actually titled an Employment Agreement. I thought I'd mention that in case it matters. I apologize if my use of terminology is incorrect or imprecise.

 

[johninbigd]

To make matters worse for me, there is the following language in the employment agreement:

"This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings with respect thereto."

Which I think basically translates to, "It doesn't matter what we told your before, either in person or in writing. If it's not in this document, it didn't happen."

 

[army judge]

As I said, it wasn't a contract. It is nothing more than what you'll be paid and when you start.

You correctly answered your own query.