Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
English to German translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law: Contract(s)
English term or phrase:third party supplier
Richtlinien zur Überprüfung von Bewerbern in einem Unternehmen (vetting policy):
Any agency temporary worker or self employed contractor, who knowingly falsifies, omits, or provides fraudulent information to the third party supplier will be removed from their engagement with (name of company) and may be subject to disciplinary action and/or dismissal from the supplier.
I still interpret the text as corresponding to your option a). If this is not the case, I cannot see how "self-employed contractors" fit into the same sentence. I see this as being about agency workers and self-employed contractors working for the third-party supplier who is in turn working on a project for [name of company]. After all, the third-party supplier could hardly be "supplying" self-employed contractors.
In the event of a violation, they are kicked off the project at [name of company] and liable to be sent packing by the third-party supplier as well (back to the agency if applicable, and back home in the case of the self-employed contractors).
As you say, it should be clear from other parts of the contract whether or not this interpretation is correct.
1. Im D kann man allerdings juristisch von einem 'Dritten' reden, dann sollte aber im gesamten Text dieser Begriff durchgängig und unzweideutig Anwendung finden.
2. Arbeitsverhältnis besteht zwischen worker and supplier (of that worker) to the company. Worker belügt usw. den supplier und wird darob aus der Dienstleistung für die company entfernt und arbeitsrechtlich vom supplier sanktioniert. So lese ich es auf D und ist es bei PSA üblich.
I don't know whether Colin & agrees support the view that
a) this clause is about information the agency worker supplies to a 3rd party (who is not the agency)
b) it is ok to translate 3rd party as Lieferant, even if the 3rd party is the agency.
I don't think that the clause is about supplying info to a third party, I would have thought that it is about the consequences of an agency worker lying about some qualification or similar to his agency.
I would find it strange if there was a clause dealing with an agency worker lying to a third party, but maybe this is what is meant here. Eszter, can you maybe work this out from the context (other clauses in contract, definitions somewhere in contract, type of employment...)
I don't know whether you can say Lieferant in German if the 3rd party is the employment agency - I don't think use of third party for agency it is too common in England, so maybe you can say it in German, too.
The links I clicked on in the answer part seemed to be about a 'traditional' supplier/Lieferant situation, so they did not really help me.
Thanks for all the input. The "Lieferant"- issue is exactly why I posted this question: I can't really figure out what they mean by that. I can't really tell whether anna29 or Colin Rowe got it right, but this is exactly the issue.
Seems to me that the third party supplier is the agency, and the worker is the third party, as in the definition in a NHS ‘Confidentiality Agreement for Third Party Suppliers ‘ :
1. Who are third parties covered by this agreement?
Third parties are located on-site for a period of time as defined within their contract.
They could include the following:
• Hardware and software maintenance and support staff (for all of the document)
• Cleaning, catering, security guards and other outsourced support services (for general contractor clause and form on back page) http://www.nnuh.nhs.uk/TrustDoc.asp?ID=242
I would not feel comfortable with a translation as 'Lieferant', and would prefer something like 'Vermittler', can you really use 'Drittlieferant/-zulieferer here?
@ hazmatgerman: I interpret this as being about "agency workers" working for the "supplier" who is, in turn, working for "company X". I don't think the "supplier" is "supplying" the workers, merely employing them from the "agency".