Former employer threatens to sue
Discussion
Friend of my daughter works in IT sales and has recently changed jobs, his former employer is known for being aggressive and have issued a written warning to him and his new employer threatening action if he breaches his contract and approaches old clients within the next 6 months. They have issued him and his new company with an undertaking, which they are demanding both parties sign and return urgently (from what I've seen it reinforces what is in his old contract), they've also phoned his home a couple of times in the evening and left threatening messages.
This guy is barely 21 and operating at a fairly junior level, he's asked me for advice and I'm loathe to tell him to see an employment lawyer because of the cost, I would like to advise him not to sign the undertaking and ignore them on the basis that if they do pursue him they will have a hard time convincing anyone that he is in breach. Can anyone out there advise?
This guy is barely 21 and operating at a fairly junior level, he's asked me for advice and I'm loathe to tell him to see an employment lawyer because of the cost, I would like to advise him not to sign the undertaking and ignore them on the basis that if they do pursue him they will have a hard time convincing anyone that he is in breach. Can anyone out there advise?
If that's the CEO I would be seriously concerned. If not, I think he should be made aware of this.
Realistically, I would completely ignore this, and if the lad does have the (mis)pleasure of speaking to his former employer I would be telling him to tell his old boss to foxtrot oscar.. perhaps in nicer words, or not. Depending on how much of a tosser his old boss was.
I can also understand why Boss wants that signed, but there's no need to be a top spec wanchor about it.
Realistically, I would completely ignore this, and if the lad does have the (mis)pleasure of speaking to his former employer I would be telling him to tell his old boss to foxtrot oscar.. perhaps in nicer words, or not. Depending on how much of a tosser his old boss was.
I can also understand why Boss wants that signed, but there's no need to be a top spec wanchor about it.
I used to work in recruitment and it was fairly common to have this clause in our employment contracts.
The general understanding was that the clause was not enforceable, and not worth the paper it was written on. I knew of hundreds of people that changed or started companies and operated in exactly the same field without recourse from old employers. I was also told by managers at my company there was nothing they could do if an old employee started "stealing" business.
Please remember that above is based on no legal grounds, more real world experience.
The general understanding was that the clause was not enforceable, and not worth the paper it was written on. I knew of hundreds of people that changed or started companies and operated in exactly the same field without recourse from old employers. I was also told by managers at my company there was nothing they could do if an old employee started "stealing" business.
Please remember that above is based on no legal grounds, more real world experience.
k off" flourish.
Whilst it is 'probably' not enforceable, because it would be an unfair contract to prevent someone from gaining employment, the idea of asking "Well, I can see what you get out of it, but what are you going to pay me, if I sign it" sort of appeals to me.
The thing is, if the product or service were competitive, the original company wouldn't have a problem.
The thing is, if the product or service were competitive, the original company wouldn't have a problem.
Jasandjules said:
What is the exact wording of the term in the contract?
I don't have it to hand, but I remember being struck by the fact it mentioned contact with current clients and 'prospective' clients for a period of six months. Remember that this is a guy with only 9 months experience in the business, they owe him a few hundred quid commission and I suspect that if he doesn't sign their undertaking they will refuse to pay him.So far I have advised him not to sign the undertaking and to ignore them but be careful not to contact any of his old clients for a few months, as for prospective clients I would think they have no rights whatsoever. It's a nonsense in my opinion, but wanted to check with the great and the good on PH.
Reading the contract is, generally, quite a good place to start.
As well as the post employment restrictions it should also cover the commission situation.
In general, I wouldn't sign anything I wasn't forced to unless it was in my favour. And it does annoy me when I hear about employers using heavy handed tactics. It encourages adversarial employer/employee relations and makes life difficult for everyone.
As well as the post employment restrictions it should also cover the commission situation.
In general, I wouldn't sign anything I wasn't forced to unless it was in my favour. And it does annoy me when I hear about employers using heavy handed tactics. It encourages adversarial employer/employee relations and makes life difficult for everyone.
Blue62 said:
they've also phoned his home a couple of times in the evening and left threatening messages.
If the 'threats' cause him 'distress' and he is the judge of this then they are potentially breaking the law. He just needs to make this 'distress' clear to the Police when making a complaint.Take a look at the Harassment clause:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stalking_and_ha...
Also take a look Section one of the Malicious Communication:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/sectio...
As a general rule under contract law he is under no obligation to agree to anything without consideration or reciprocity.
His new employer should at least be assisting the handling this.
desolate said:
Reading the contract is, generally, quite a good place to start.
As well as the post employment restrictions it should also cover the commission situation.
In general, I wouldn't sign anything I wasn't forced to unless it was in my favour. And it does annoy me when I hear about employers using heavy handed tactics. It encourages adversarial employer/employee relations and makes life difficult for everyone.
I have read his contract but it was a few days ago and it's not in my possession, as stated this is a friend of my daughter who has approached me because I ran a business for many years before selling out. As well as the post employment restrictions it should also cover the commission situation.
In general, I wouldn't sign anything I wasn't forced to unless it was in my favour. And it does annoy me when I hear about employers using heavy handed tactics. It encourages adversarial employer/employee relations and makes life difficult for everyone.
I understand his new employers have offered help but he's a little embarrassed, he's only a kid. I cannot believe anyone would try to impose restrictions upon prospective clients, it's ludicrous, but they have the right to protect themselves but I sense this is more about not paying the poor lad what he is due. Thanks again all
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff