working for a competitor....

[williaa68]

Why not provide your current contract to your prospective new employer and ask them if they will indemnify you if you join and the old employer throws a wobbly? There is no way they are going to seek an injunction - most likely just an exchange of solicitors letters and then you will reach some compromise

[SickFish]

I've contacted a solicitor, to see if they will cast their eye over my contract and to give me their thoughts.

I think that is the best plan of action for now, at least it would put my mind at ease one way or the other.

[anonymous-user]

swerni said:

I don't disagree, they can be enforced, however, they must be deemed to be reasonable.
What is reasonable is stopping a rep selling to customers he's been engaged with for a period
What isn't reasonable is stopping a rep selling In to customers where he has had no prior engagement.

I agree.

In the link provided the old employer actually did get an injunction only to lose in the end.

An expensive business all round.

[hman]

swerni said:

desolate said:

swerni said:

Did you actually read that article?.
They took over half the team, this is one person

Irrelevant

In certain circumstances they definitely can stop you working for a competitor.

In the real world, it is very difficult to do so.

I lost a long online debate with Breadvan about this a while ago - he was able to give specific examples of where this sort of thing is enforced even relating to a junior position.
I have quite a lot of "real world" experience in insurance, law and sports rep and it is very difficult to win as the employer without a seriously well organised row of ducks.

I don't disagree, they can be enforced, however, they must be deemed to be reasonable.
What is reasonable is stopping a rep selling to customers he's been engaged with for a period
What isn't reasonable is stopping a rep selling In to customers where he has had no prior engagement.

So what happens if :

I work for company 1 and deal with customer x, leave company 1, join company 2 and get in touch with company x this then brings company x into contact with company 2 via myself, I then leave company 2 and company x says they want to keep dealing with me so I take them to company 3.

I dont see that company 2 can enforce anything about me dealing with customer x through company 3.

[anonymous-user]

hman said:

So what happens if :

I work for company 1 and deal with customer x, leave company 1, join company 2 and get in touch with company x this then brings company x into contact with company 2 via myself, I then leave company 2 and company x says they want to keep dealing with me so I take them to company 3.

I dont see that company 2 can enforce anything about me dealing with customer x through company 3.

If the contract is correct they can stop you.


If

[Cotty]

At least 12 months non compete.

[SickFish]

Cotty said:

At least 12 months non compete.

[Cotty]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

[Jonsv8]

hman said:

So what happens if :

I work for company 1 and deal with customer x, leave company 1, join company 2 and get in touch with company x this then brings company x into contact with company 2 via myself, I then leave company 2 and company x says they want to keep dealing with me so I take them to company 3.

I don't see that company 2 can enforce anything about me dealing with customer x through company 3.

The contract customer x has is always with the company and not with you. They employ you to bring in business.

Which of the clauses do you have most issue with?

a and b are pretty much a slam dunk for them, very common and you're on a hiding to nothing if that's what you want to do

c you'd need a solicitor but it strikes me as a restraint of trade

d looks like a variation of a to me for people in a non-sales capacity where your services are what the customer wants to buy.

e looks reasonable too.

As said by many, and I know its what you're trying to do, you need professional advice but if your intention is a, b, possibly d or e then I think you're going to struggle. c is the slightly dubious one, but if c is unfair then you may win on all counts as the contract could be voided.

If the market is very niche and specialized then your new employer will presumably have issues recruiting skilled people. They may be very willing to come to agreement with you.

[SickFish]

Jonsv8 said:

hman said:

So what happens if :

I work for company 1 and deal with customer x, leave company 1, join company 2 and get in touch with company x this then brings company x into contact with company 2 via myself, I then leave company 2 and company x says they want to keep dealing with me so I take them to company 3.

I don't see that company 2 can enforce anything about me dealing with customer x through company 3.

The contract customer x has is always with the company and not with you. They employ you to bring in business.

Which of the clauses do you have most issue with?

a and b are pretty much a slam dunk for them, very common and you're on a hiding to nothing if that's what you want to do

c you'd need a solicitor but it strikes me as a restraint of trade

d looks like a variation of a to me for people in a non-sales capacity where your services are what the customer wants to buy.

e looks reasonable too.

As said by many, and I know its what you're trying to do, you need professional advice but if your intention is a, b, possibly d or e then I think you're going to struggle. c is the slightly dubious one, but if c is unfair then you may win on all counts as the contract could be voided.

If the market is very niche and specialized then your new employer will presumably have issues recruiting skilled people. They may be very willing to come to agreement with you.

I'll assume you're talking to me (the OP) essentially, what I want to do is option C.... Move to another company in the same industry offering similar goods. The market isn't niche and specialized in that it's particularly "special" it's just that there aren't a huge amount of companies offering the same goods (industrial machines).

[Jonsv8]

SickFish said:

I'll assume you're talking to me (the OP) essentially, what I want to do is option C.... Move to another company in the same industry offering similar goods. The market isn't niche and specialized in that it's particularly "special" it's just that there aren't a huge amount of companies offering the same goods (industrial machines).

Hi yes - got lost with who the OP was!

Definitely worth the legal advice then as that's the one I feel is the most dubious. It would be like telling a chef he couldn't cook for anyone else. I struggle to see how their statement as to why its protecting their interests applies unless it falls into one of the other clauses (they have to have a reason why they are applying the restraint). c on its own pretty much prevents you even being in a position to do the others things if you wanted to.

[SickFish]

Jonsv8 said:

SickFish said:

I'll assume you're talking to me (the OP) essentially, what I want to do is option C.... Move to another company in the same industry offering similar goods. The market isn't niche and specialized in that it's particularly "special" it's just that there aren't a huge amount of companies offering the same goods (industrial machines).

Hi yes - got lost with who the OP was!

Definitely worth the legal advice then as that's the one I feel is the most dubious. It would be like telling a chef he couldn't cook for anyone else. I struggle to see how their statement as to why its protecting their interests applies unless it falls into one of the other clauses (they have to have a reason why they are applying the restraint). c on its own pretty much prevents you even being in a position to do the others things if you wanted to.

That's what I thought too, its quite a "catch-all" statement... I thought it had to refer to my specific territory and couldn't be overly broad.

[SickFish]

Well.... time for a thread resurrection... looks like there is a strong chance I will be going to court.... I have just received a "Letter Before Action" from my ex employers solicitor.... sigh.... deep joy

I could really do without this.

Edited by SickFish on Thursday 23 July 17:26

[Jasandjules]

I've emailed you.

[cat with a hat]

SickFish said:

Well.... time for a thread resurrection... looks like there is a strong chance I will be going to court.... I have just received a "Letter Before Action" from my ex employers solicitor.... sigh.... deep joy

I could really do without this.

Edited by SickFish on Thursday 23 July 17:26

Jesus!

[mikees]

cat with a hat said:

SickFish said:

Well.... time for a thread resurrection... looks like there is a strong chance I will be going to court.... I have just received a "Letter Before Action" from my ex employers solicitor.... sigh.... deep joy

I could really do without this.

Edited by SickFish on Thursday 23 July 17:26

Jesus!

Ditto. Seems like knob vindictive directors. Is it worth it? God knows. Sorry to hear about it.

[SickFish]

mikees said:

cat with a hat said:

SickFish said:

Well.... time for a thread resurrection... looks like there is a strong chance I will be going to court.... I have just received a "Letter Before Action" from my ex employers solicitor.... sigh.... deep joy

I could really do without this.

Edited by SickFish on Thursday 23 July 17:26

Jesus!

Ditto. Seems like knob vindictive directors. Is it worth it? God knows. Sorry to hear about it.

That is EXACTLY IT

[SickFish]

swerni said:

SickFish said:

mikees said:

cat with a hat said:

SickFish said:

Well.... time for a thread resurrection... looks like there is a strong chance I will be going to court.... I have just received a "Letter Before Action" from my ex employers solicitor.... sigh.... deep joy

I could really do without this.

Edited by SickFish on Thursday 23 July 17:26

Jesus!

Ditto. Seems like knob vindictive directors. Is it worth it? God knows. Sorry to hear about it.

That is EXACTLY IT

Which clause are they saying you broke?

It's massively unclear as they make direct reference to A, C and D, however, I believe it is clause C they are pushing

[PoleDriver]

I really don't get this!?
For the past 35 years I've always had fairly senior jobs in technical companies and, as such, have always been party to company confidential information (designs etc). My contracts have always stated that, should I leave the company, I am not allowed to seek employment with a 'competitor' for 6-12 months. I consulted with a solicitor on a couple of occasions regarding this and was told on both occasions that this clause was not enforceable!

That was good news because if you specialise in something (especially on the technical side) any company who is in the same field will be a competitor and it's not easy to get employment in an area in which you have no experience!

[anonymous-user]

This is a paradigm example of why all of you idiots who give legal advice here based on the square root of fk all knowledge and experience should just STFU. You irresponsible jerks encourage people like the OP to get themselves sued. Will all of you armchair experts who insist that covenants are unenforceable please get this into your heads once and for all. Employers can and do sue on restrictive covenants. In most cases, they win. Basis for opinion: decades of doing actual cases about this stuff, not sitting in the internet pub. Pardon me if I seem tetchy, but I am.

OP, go and see a lawyer NOW. One recommendation is David Ludlow at Barlow Robbins. If you have lots of money, call Dan Aherne at Olswang (but I mean lots of money).

I was not active on PH when this thread started, OP. If I had been, I would have tried to save you from the fkwits who were telling you that you had nothing to worry about, but too late.

One more time: Amateur internet experts: You don't have to face the consequences of your ignorance and stupidity. Someone else might have to. Do the decent thing, and SHUT UP.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 24th July 09:46