The line they couldn't sign: replacing a partner agency mid-recruitment for a window plant

01 / The request

Fifteen assemblers before the window season

A PVC window plant in the Lviv region was preparing for its spring season and asked for fifteen window frame assemblers. Experience with tools was welcome; the plant would train the rest. It had worked with foreign workers before and asked plainly: no intermediaries who take money from people. We recruited in Tajikistan: citizens of that country enter Ukraine without a visa, and the route takes four to seven weeks on average.

We searched the regions through a partner agency we'd already worked with on two projects. Sherzod, one of our worker relations managers, speaks Tajik and held video interviews with the candidates the partner brought. Within three weeks the plant approved twenty-two candidates for fifteen places, with a margin for withdrawals.

The next step was information sheets. Each candidate receives a sheet with their job, pay, hours, housing and the costs they cover themselves, and signs it before the permit application. That was exactly where things went badly off plan.

Who's needed

15 window frame assemblers

Country

Tajikistan, visa-free entry

Search

Through a partner agency with two past projects

Approved

22 candidates for 15 places

02 / Partners

What we require of a partner agency

In every country we work with local agencies that know the regions, the language and the people. But WORKIN runs the project, and the partner's rules are set out in our contract with it. The main one: in our projects candidates don't pay for placement. The partner's services are paid for by the project, not by the person going to work.

This rule isn't only about ethics. Someone who has paid several months' earnings for a job arrives in debt, looks for better pay from day one, and is usually the first to leave. For the plant that means a replacement, for the person lost money, and for us broken trust in a region we recruit from. That's why the rule appears in the partner contract, in the information sheet and in the interview. At every interview Sherzod asked whether anyone had asked the person for money, but with the partner's recruiter in the room people said no.

• candidates don't pay the partner for recruitment, interviews or 'paperwork';
• the partner gives candidates full information about conditions before departure;
• every candidate signs an information sheet with a line confirming no payment;
• WORKIN has direct contact with every candidate, not only through the partner;
• breaching any point is grounds for ending work with the partner.

03 / The signal

A pause at the line 'I wasn't charged'

Candidates signed their information sheets over video with Sherzod, who read each point in Tajik and answered questions. The first twelve signed without hesitation. With the thirteenth, Sherzod noticed the man looking at the second-to-last line for a long time without signing.

Sherzod asked the partner to leave the room and spoke to the candidate alone. He said he had paid the partner's regional recruiter for 'document processing' and was afraid that line would cost him the job. Sherzod explained that nobody would be punished for telling the truth, and that the money was a matter for the partner, not the candidate.

That same day we spoke privately with all twenty-two candidates, including those who had already signed. Nine confirmed they had paid in cash, with no paperwork, to the same recruiter at the partner's regional office. The amounts varied: a hundred dollars from one, several hundred from another, depending on what each could give. Three of those who had signed did so because they were afraid of losing their place.

1. Day 1

   A candidate won't sign the no-payment line. A private conversation.

2. Day 1

   Conversations with all 22 candidates without the partner. Nine confirm payment.

3. Day 2

   Work with the partner stopped; the plant informed; a plan for the week.

4. Day 3

   Demand that the partner refund people under its contract with WORKIN.

5. Days 4-7

   A new partner vetted and repeat interviews held.

04 / The decision

Stopping the partner, refunds, and direct contact with everyone

We stopped work with the partner the morning after nine candidates confirmed payment, once we had the full picture. The agency's head first claimed the recruiter had acted alone, without his knowledge. Perhaps so, but an agency is responsible for its people, and our contract says so explicitly. Before demanding refunds we took a short statement from each of the nine: to whom, when and how much. Without that, the conversation with the agency would have been one word against another.

We required the agency to refund all nine candidates and asked each candidate to confirm to us personally that they'd received the money. The agency paid it back within a week, partly through its regional director and partly by transfer. Sherzod spoke to each of the nine separately and closed the matter only after personal confirmation.

The plant heard everything the same day. We showed the director what had happened, what had already been done and that permit filing dates wouldn't move: we had a candidate reserve and time before filing. The plant asked for one thing: that none of the people who came should owe anyone for the job.

05 / The new partner

How we vetted the replacement agency

We already had another partner in Tajikistan: we'd worked with it on a small project a year before. But after what had happened, Kemal, head of our recruitment department, vetted it again as if it were a new agency. Trust in a partner doesn't carry over automatically from a previous project.

Kemal spoke to several people the partner had placed before and asked directly whether they had paid the agency. He checked that the agency had an office and real recruiters in the regions rather than intermediaries without an address. And he asked its director to sign an annex to the contract with a separate clause banning charges to candidates and making the agency responsible for its recruiters. The vetting took four days, and recruitment didn't stop in the meantime: Sherzod kept talking to candidates and preparing their documents.

06 / Repeat selection

Twenty-two candidates again, and all debt-free

We didn't drop the candidates the previous partner had brought: they'd done nothing wrong, and nine had already had their money returned. Sherzod held a fresh conversation with everyone, without partners present, and offered to continue with the new agency. Eighteen agreed and four declined: two had found other work and two no longer wanted to go after what had happened.

Within a week the new partner brought six more candidates; Sherzod interviewed them and the plant approved five. That made twenty-three candidates for fifteen places. From day one each had Sherzod's direct number, so they never had to go through a recruiter with a question. The information sheets were signed again, and this time before signing Sherzod always said: if anyone took money from you, tell us, and your place is safe.

All twenty-three signed the no-payment line without pausing. Fifteen went into processing and eight stayed in reserve. How we describe conditions for candidates is on our working conditions page, and answers to common candidate questions are in the candidate FAQ.

07 / Arrival

Permits, entry and fifteen people at the plant on the planned date

We filed the work permit applications on the date agreed with the plant before the partner problem: the candidate reserve and the time before filing meant not a single step had to move. The plant paid the fees from its own account, and the permits were issued within a week.

The group entered visa-free with a document set for the border: a permit copy, the plant's invitation with the housing address and Sherzod's phone number. More on this route on our visa-free entry page. Employment contracts were signed in the first days, and temporary residence permit filings went ahead in groups in the first weeks. Two of the people who had got their money back were the first to message Sherzod on arrival day to say everything was fine.

That's where our work with the group ended, and training on the lines is run by the plant. The previous partner no longer works with WORKIN. The regional recruiter who collected the money has, as far as we know, been dismissed by the agency. You can see what a contract that sets out each party's responsibility before the start looks like on the WORKIN contract page.

08 / Outcome

A new partner, money returned to people and not a day's delay

The signal

A pause at a line in the information sheet; a private conversation

The partner

Work stopped, money returned to all nine candidates

New partner

Vetted from scratch, no-charge rule in a contract annex

Candidates

18 stayed, 5 new, 15 processed, 8 in reserve

Timeline

Filing and arrival on the planned dates

There's nothing WORKIN can't solve with partners either: we keep direct contact with every candidate, catch breaches before permit filing and resolve them so that neither people nor the company suffer. The WORKIN replacement guarantee lasts at least 6 months from the worker's first shift, provided the agreed working, pay and housing conditions are kept. How we replaced a partner before a first wave is covered in the scenario about seamstresses from Uzbekistan and Nepal, and why candidates pay nothing and how the company can see that in the scenario about a transparent calculation. The whole route is on how it works. More on our pages about workers for manufacturing, production workers and recruitment.

09 / FAQ

Questions and answers