Help: employment law and non-compete
Discussion
Further to this thread:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
I basically need more advice now that my previous employer has decided to take matters further.
To summarise:
- Started in April 2015, 6 months probationary period
- Things not as expected, role not very fulfilling
- Alternative company advertising position in August, applied out of interest
- Went really well, interviews attended etc - keen to start
- Notified current employer of intention to terminate employment (25th September)
- volunteered to work 1 month despite probationary period still in effect
- Explicitly notified employer of my intention to move to a competitor and implications it may have with contract, specifically asking whether they would like to enforce clause 17 of my contract (non-compete) or if we could have an amicable transition
- employer tries to encourage me to stay / reconsider, but prospects not good. Reaffirmed resignation early October.
- Nothing was said and normal duties resumed until yesterday (26th October)
- Asked to return property (company car, laptop and mobile) on 27th (today). Reassured that travel home would be compensated and I would be dropped off at the nearest train station.
- Reached office in the morning, waited around 5 hours for exit interview. Car handed over etc.
- Upon completion of exit interview presented with letter by MD, setting out their intentions to enforce non-compete and seek damages if I proceed to work for new company (scheduled start date is next Monday!)
- Utterly disgusted, asked MD why we couldn't have discussed this earlier and that I wouldn't be competing in the majority of shared interest business.
- Was escorted from premises and left to walk away in the rain!
So the last bit is kind of funny on reflection, shouldn't have trusted a word they said.
But where does this leave me? (apart from being 100 miles away from home!)
I've been nothing but upfront, honest and forthcoming about this whole situation. It's the company's fault that I'm leaving, the role is not reflective of that which was discussed during interviews and in my offer of employment and subsequent contract.
The non-compete is enforced for 12 months, during which time I cannot work for anyone in the industry in which I have been for the last 7 years. Allegedly.
Does / can this hold any water?
I'm just upset about the whole thing. I thought we had a mutual respect and understanding. Interestingly this role has had a vast turnover of employees over the last few years, none of which have been subjected to the same treatment I have. I suppose it's a compliment they see me as such a threat!
Thanks in advance for any help / advice
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
I basically need more advice now that my previous employer has decided to take matters further.
To summarise:
- Started in April 2015, 6 months probationary period
- Things not as expected, role not very fulfilling
- Alternative company advertising position in August, applied out of interest
- Went really well, interviews attended etc - keen to start
- Notified current employer of intention to terminate employment (25th September)
- volunteered to work 1 month despite probationary period still in effect
- Explicitly notified employer of my intention to move to a competitor and implications it may have with contract, specifically asking whether they would like to enforce clause 17 of my contract (non-compete) or if we could have an amicable transition
- employer tries to encourage me to stay / reconsider, but prospects not good. Reaffirmed resignation early October.
- Nothing was said and normal duties resumed until yesterday (26th October)
- Asked to return property (company car, laptop and mobile) on 27th (today). Reassured that travel home would be compensated and I would be dropped off at the nearest train station.
- Reached office in the morning, waited around 5 hours for exit interview. Car handed over etc.
- Upon completion of exit interview presented with letter by MD, setting out their intentions to enforce non-compete and seek damages if I proceed to work for new company (scheduled start date is next Monday!)
- Utterly disgusted, asked MD why we couldn't have discussed this earlier and that I wouldn't be competing in the majority of shared interest business.
- Was escorted from premises and left to walk away in the rain!
So the last bit is kind of funny on reflection, shouldn't have trusted a word they said.
But where does this leave me? (apart from being 100 miles away from home!)
I've been nothing but upfront, honest and forthcoming about this whole situation. It's the company's fault that I'm leaving, the role is not reflective of that which was discussed during interviews and in my offer of employment and subsequent contract.
The non-compete is enforced for 12 months, during which time I cannot work for anyone in the industry in which I have been for the last 7 years. Allegedly.
Does / can this hold any water?
I'm just upset about the whole thing. I thought we had a mutual respect and understanding. Interestingly this role has had a vast turnover of employees over the last few years, none of which have been subjected to the same treatment I have. I suppose it's a compliment they see me as such a threat!
Thanks in advance for any help / advice
I am afraid your description of the situation is too vague. What was your old job title and responsibilities, and in which industry, and what are the new ones?
On the face of it, they are unlikely to be able to successfully enforce the non-compete clause, as you would not appear to be a significant employee from your description, as a new starter in April, but that would depend on the facts of what you and the company actually did.
On the face of it, they are unlikely to be able to successfully enforce the non-compete clause, as you would not appear to be a significant employee from your description, as a new starter in April, but that would depend on the facts of what you and the company actually did.
You need a lawyer. A proper, specialist lawyer. Email Breadvan72 for advice on a good one.
I am not a lawyer, but I have seen enough of these on PH over time to know that it is a horribly complex area where companies often win despite the well meaning advice on here. It's rarely clear cut.
I am not a lawyer, but I have seen enough of these on PH over time to know that it is a horribly complex area where companies often win despite the well meaning advice on here. It's rarely clear cut.
Thanks folks.
My notice period isn't specified for my probationary period, however historically others have only given a weeks' notice in the same role with no recourse, under these circumstances. My contract does stipulate 1 months' notice on completion of probationary period however. I volunteered to work this month out of good will.
I will seek proper legal advice in the morning.
My job title was Area Sales Manager, region covering north London and the home counties up to Northamptonshire and across to Oxfordshire - pretty vast.
My industry is internal timber doors, they have insisted that I don't work for another 'door company' despite this being my field for the past 7 years.
My notice period isn't specified for my probationary period, however historically others have only given a weeks' notice in the same role with no recourse, under these circumstances. My contract does stipulate 1 months' notice on completion of probationary period however. I volunteered to work this month out of good will.
I will seek proper legal advice in the morning.
My job title was Area Sales Manager, region covering north London and the home counties up to Northamptonshire and across to Oxfordshire - pretty vast.
My industry is internal timber doors, they have insisted that I don't work for another 'door company' despite this being my field for the past 7 years.
As discussed above you should talke legal advice here. Your profile says that you are an estimator and these skills are transferable IMO. I work in a similar field and on the assumption that you are not poaching existing clients of your former employer I would not expect a non compete clause to be enforced. Are you sure the MD is not messing with your head?
Good luck!
Good luck!
PM me and I will point you towards a suitable solicitor, but if you are to fight this, or even negotiate a good exit, be prepared to dig into your pocket. Find out if your new employer will assist you with legal representation - these cases are sometimes fought as war by proxy between the two commercial players. I can give you a quick shuftie of the covenant, but, as everyone says, you need insured professional advice ASAP. You were urged by sensible people on your previous thread to take such advice, but it appears that you didn't. Never mind, but now things may be getting a bit urgent, so I suggest that you stop asking for help on here, and lawyer-up in the real world.
Letter from lawyers doesn't mean 100% serious, necessarily.
Sending a letter is cheap. Making it clear to him that he has little prospect of success, and a good prospect of losing lots of money may well shut him up rather quickly.
Your aim is to show him, rather quickly, that messing with you is far more trouble for him than it is for you (even if this is not necessarily true). Their lawyer's letter will be a long, impressive list of reasons why you are totally f
ked, but tbh while it looks impressive, half of the time they don't even believe it themselves.
Sending a letter is cheap. Making it clear to him that he has little prospect of success, and a good prospect of losing lots of money may well shut him up rather quickly.
Your aim is to show him, rather quickly, that messing with you is far more trouble for him than it is for you (even if this is not necessarily true). Their lawyer's letter will be a long, impressive list of reasons why you are totally f
ked, but tbh while it looks impressive, half of the time they don't even believe it themselves.thelawnet1 said:
Letter from lawyers doesn't mean 100% serious, necessarily.
Sending a letter is cheap. Making it clear to him that he has little prospect of success, and a good prospect of losing lots of money may well shut him up rather quickly.
Your aim is to show him, rather quickly, that messing with you is far more trouble for him than it is for you (even if this is not necessarily true). Their lawyer's letter will be a long, impressive list of reasons why you are totally fked, but tbh while it looks impressive, half of the time they don't even believe it themselves.
BV72 is a specialist, and a very helpful one for PHers in between grumpy phases. IANAL.Sending a letter is cheap. Making it clear to him that he has little prospect of success, and a good prospect of losing lots of money may well shut him up rather quickly.
Your aim is to show him, rather quickly, that messing with you is far more trouble for him than it is for you (even if this is not necessarily true). Their lawyer's letter will be a long, impressive list of reasons why you are totally f
ked, but tbh while it looks impressive, half of the time they don't even believe it themselves.I don't object to your post but given your user name, can you clarify your experience to advise in this case?
For clarity, are you a lawyer? What specialist knowledge do you have in this area? Is it pub advice or advice based on qualified knowledge?
thelawnet1 said:
Letter from lawyers doesn't mean 100% serious, necessarily.
Sending a letter is cheap. Making it clear to him that he has little prospect of success, and a good prospect of losing lots of money may well shut him up rather quickly.
Your aim is to show him, rather quickly, that messing with you is far more trouble for him than it is for you (even if this is not necessarily true). Their lawyer's letter will be a long, impressive list of reasons why you are totally fked, but tbh while it looks impressive, half of the time they don't even believe it themselves.
This is good advice, I would be acquiring his address and popping round his house for a chat about the 'risk' he is putting his business into with regards to this matter, in respect of both money and time, things get real for people really quickly when your in their house, drinking their coffee, with their wife when they arrive home from the office after a long day. Keep in friendly, but keep to the point, if he monologues, gets angry or aggressive stay calm and let him, breath through it, do not retaliate.Sending a letter is cheap. Making it clear to him that he has little prospect of success, and a good prospect of losing lots of money may well shut him up rather quickly.
Your aim is to show him, rather quickly, that messing with you is far more trouble for him than it is for you (even if this is not necessarily true). Their lawyer's letter will be a long, impressive list of reasons why you are totally f
ked, but tbh while it looks impressive, half of the time they don't even believe it themselves.Foliage said:
This is good advice, I would be acquiring his address and popping round his house for a chat about the 'risk' he is putting his business into with regards to this matter, in respect of both money and time, things get real for people really quickly when your in their house, drinking their coffee, with their wife when they arrive home from the office after a long day. Keep in friendly, but keep to the point, if he monologues, gets angry or aggressive stay calm and let him, breath through it, do not retaliate.
I truly hope that was tongue in cheek advice.Vaud said:
Foliage said:
This is good advice, I would be acquiring his address and popping round his house for a chat about the 'risk' he is putting his business into with regards to this matter, in respect of both money and time, things get real for people really quickly when your in their house, drinking their coffee, with their wife when they arrive home from the office after a long day. Keep in friendly, but keep to the point, if he monologues, gets angry or aggressive stay calm and let him, breath through it, do not retaliate.
I truly hope that was tongue in cheek advice.Edited by Foliage on Wednesday 28th October 11:26
Foliage said:
Vaud said:
Foliage said:
This is good advice, I would be acquiring his address and popping round his house for a chat about the 'risk' he is putting his business into with regards to this matter, in respect of both money and time, things get real for people really quickly when your in their house, drinking their coffee, with their wife when they arrive home from the office after a long day. Keep in friendly, but keep to the point, if he monologues, gets angry or aggressive stay calm and let him, breath through it, do not retaliate.
I truly hope that was tongue in cheek advice.Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 28th October 11:26
How do you know that's true, you have only one side of the story?
Why do unqualified people insist on talking crap, even after qualified, clearly sensible advice has been posted?
Because Internet.Foliage said:
It not good advice (in fact id go so far as to say its bad advice in the current work culture) but its worked for me in the past, opening a dialogue in a different setting does wonders for a variety of work challenges. Its unlikely the MD would go for a pint with the OP so forcing the situation is a viable course of action. The MD has approached things in a terrible way, op has tried to be upfront and honest to no avail, time to meet the MD in the middle.
'There are no friends in business' is much better advice.... This no longer has anything to do with the OP's former employer, it is now down to the OP to get some proper legal guidance on whether the non-competition clause actually applies during a probation period, is enforceable, or whether it is overly restrictive.Edited by Foliage on Wednesday 28th October 11:26
Edited by The Surveyor on Wednesday 28th October 13:15
The employer might be bluffing, or it might not be. It has gone to the trouble to retain a law firm to write an initial letter. The employer may or may not be resolved to take things further, but it would be very unwise to assume that the employer is not so resolved.
A covenant has to be reasonable when the contract is made. It cannot become more or less reasonable in view of later events. There is no reason in principle why a covenant may not be enforced against an employee who has only been with the employer a short time, but the shortness of employment could in some cases be a factor that affected the court's discretion to grant or refuse an injunction.
The suggestion of going round to the MD's house is pretty daft. Doing that is unlikely to work, and could backfire - the employer could spin the visit as an attempt by the OP to intimidate the MD.
Thee suggestion that it is the employer, and not the OP, that has mishandled this seems a bit bonkers to me. The OP was advised in plain terms on his last thread to seek professional advice. He chose not to do so, perhaps hoping to save money and thinking that the problem might just go away. He could perhaps have negotiated a deal at that time. He might still be able to negotiate a deal. Most restrictive covenant disputes settle without trial. Now, however, the threat of a law suit is higher than it was before, and it may cost the OP a lot more to get out of the pickle than it would have done some time ago. Thus skimping on a legal fee last time around may have turned out as a false economy. Still, it may not be too late to sort things out, and the employer might just be sabre rattling, but, as I said, don't bet on that. Twelve month non compete clauses are routinely enforced these days, often against not very senior employees.
More generally, the bloke in pub mantra that tells employees to stick their heads in the sand when employers mention enforcing covenants is even more useless than most bloke in pub mantras.
A covenant has to be reasonable when the contract is made. It cannot become more or less reasonable in view of later events. There is no reason in principle why a covenant may not be enforced against an employee who has only been with the employer a short time, but the shortness of employment could in some cases be a factor that affected the court's discretion to grant or refuse an injunction.
The suggestion of going round to the MD's house is pretty daft. Doing that is unlikely to work, and could backfire - the employer could spin the visit as an attempt by the OP to intimidate the MD.
Thee suggestion that it is the employer, and not the OP, that has mishandled this seems a bit bonkers to me. The OP was advised in plain terms on his last thread to seek professional advice. He chose not to do so, perhaps hoping to save money and thinking that the problem might just go away. He could perhaps have negotiated a deal at that time. He might still be able to negotiate a deal. Most restrictive covenant disputes settle without trial. Now, however, the threat of a law suit is higher than it was before, and it may cost the OP a lot more to get out of the pickle than it would have done some time ago. Thus skimping on a legal fee last time around may have turned out as a false economy. Still, it may not be too late to sort things out, and the employer might just be sabre rattling, but, as I said, don't bet on that. Twelve month non compete clauses are routinely enforced these days, often against not very senior employees.
More generally, the bloke in pub mantra that tells employees to stick their heads in the sand when employers mention enforcing covenants is even more useless than most bloke in pub mantras.
OP Hope the early advice and BV's offer of an initial glance and to recommend a solicitor is helpful.
I'm really pleased to see this thread go the way it has. We've got some obvious professional hints. It would be even better if the people who are not lawyers (although they stand out on this one), would say in advance of their posts....
I'm really pleased to see this thread go the way it has. We've got some obvious professional hints. It would be even better if the people who are not lawyers (although they stand out on this one), would say in advance of their posts....
You need to speak to a solicitor that specializes in employment law.
These things can get ugly and they can do you a lot of harm in the long run. Its not an area you want to bounce about in without the right information and pistonheads aint the right place.....
be wise and take the advice yu got earlier and open dialogue with a solicitor.
These things can get ugly and they can do you a lot of harm in the long run. Its not an area you want to bounce about in without the right information and pistonheads aint the right place.....
be wise and take the advice yu got earlier and open dialogue with a solicitor.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff