Legal bods- please help me interpret some legal language
Discussion
Hi all, I recently started a new job and would love to hire a particular ex colleague to fill a vacancy in my team. My old place had a line in the employee handbook telling you not to “attempt to induce staff to leave, either directly or indirectly for 6 months after your own leaving date”.
Do you think I would fall foul of this if I did the following?
1. Post a link to the job on my LinkedIn account. My ‘target’ is a 1st degree connection.
2. If my ‘target’ applied, the plan would be that I completely remove myself from the interviewing process and have no contact with them.
This means that if, in the unlikely event that my last employer came after me, I could honestly say I had not ‘induced’ their employee to move, through persuasion.
However, do you guys think I still fall foul of the other meaning of ‘induce’: bringing about or giving rise to something? I’m thinking I would, but just after slightly more learned opinions than my own!
Do you think I would fall foul of this if I did the following?
1. Post a link to the job on my LinkedIn account. My ‘target’ is a 1st degree connection.
2. If my ‘target’ applied, the plan would be that I completely remove myself from the interviewing process and have no contact with them.
This means that if, in the unlikely event that my last employer came after me, I could honestly say I had not ‘induced’ their employee to move, through persuasion.
However, do you guys think I still fall foul of the other meaning of ‘induce’: bringing about or giving rise to something? I’m thinking I would, but just after slightly more learned opinions than my own!
Edited by M3CS on Thursday 16th November 23:03
Edited by M3CS on Thursday 16th November 23:04
1. Unless the staff handbook was incorporated into your contract of employment, the non poaching rule is not contractual.
2. If the rule is expressed as you have quoted it, it is too wide to be enforceable. A non poaching clause that applies to all staff would usually be too wide. Such a clause should be targeted to, for example, staff whom you managed or worked closely with.
3. What is inducement is a question of fact in each case. I think that placing a link to a job advert on your linked in page would probably count as an inducement. The fact that you intend it to be one wouldn't help.
4. But see 1 and 2 above.
2. If the rule is expressed as you have quoted it, it is too wide to be enforceable. A non poaching clause that applies to all staff would usually be too wide. Such a clause should be targeted to, for example, staff whom you managed or worked closely with.
3. What is inducement is a question of fact in each case. I think that placing a link to a job advert on your linked in page would probably count as an inducement. The fact that you intend it to be one wouldn't help.
4. But see 1 and 2 above.
Breadvan72 said:
Very helpful reply
Thanks bv. The wording has a little more specificity to it, being that you need to have worked together within the last X months, but then says they need to have had access to confidential company information.....which 99% of staff would have had according to the company’s information classification rules. So it is pretty broad and essentially precludes me from talking to a big chunk of the market due to the size of the company....at least 5% of the people who could do the role in the UK work for them.On it being non contractual, I can confirm that poaching isn’t directly referred to in the contract of employment, however there may be something saying i need to abide by whatever the employee handbook says.
I think that your third point is the killer though. I am not so desperate that I need to take the personal risk of inviting trouble from my old employer (or having a black mark put against my name if i need a reference in future).
Thanks again.
If you were having a drink with a friendly recruiter, you might not be able to remember afterwards whether or not you mentioned any specific names when they asked about who in the market you'd recommend for the open position.
In practice, if there's no evidence of inducement, it's almost impossible to enforce I suspect.
In practice, if there's no evidence of inducement, it's almost impossible to enforce I suspect.
M3CS said:
Hi all, I recently started a new job and would love to hire a particular ex colleague to fill a vacancy in my team. My old place had a line in the employee handbook telling you not to “attempt to induce staff to leave, either directly or indirectly for 6 months after your own leaving date”.
Do you think I would fall foul of this if I did the following?
1. Post a link to the job on my LinkedIn account. My ‘target’ is a 1st degree connection.
2. If my ‘target’ applied, the plan would be that I completely remove myself from the interviewing process and have no contact with them.
This means that if, in the unlikely event that my last employer came after me, I could honestly say I had not ‘induced’ their employee to move, through persuasion.
However, do you guys think I still fall foul of the other meaning of ‘induce’: bringing about or giving rise to something? I’m thinking I would, but just after slightly more learned opinions than my own!
Well you intend to do exactly what the handbook intends you do not do but you intend to disguise that by your fannying about with LinkedIn. You would therefore be in breach of the handbook.Do you think I would fall foul of this if I did the following?
1. Post a link to the job on my LinkedIn account. My ‘target’ is a 1st degree connection.
2. If my ‘target’ applied, the plan would be that I completely remove myself from the interviewing process and have no contact with them.
This means that if, in the unlikely event that my last employer came after me, I could honestly say I had not ‘induced’ their employee to move, through persuasion.
However, do you guys think I still fall foul of the other meaning of ‘induce’: bringing about or giving rise to something? I’m thinking I would, but just after slightly more learned opinions than my own!
Edited by M3CS on Thursday 16th November 23:03
Edited by M3CS on Thursday 16th November 23:04
Whether the terms of the handbook are contractual by putting a line in your contract to say they are is up to you to look up. Whether that is then contractual would need an employment specialist.
Speed, plod and the law is full of posters saying “I know I’ve broken the law, rule, etc, but let’s work out why I haven’t ...” sad really.
Breadvan72 said:
1. Unless the staff handbook was incorporated into your contract of employment, the non poaching rule is not contractual.
2. If the rule is expressed as you have quoted it, it is too wide to be enforceable. A non poaching clause that applies to all staff would usually be too wide. Such a clause should be targeted to, for example, staff whom you managed or worked closely with.
3. What is inducement is a question of fact in each case. I think that placing a link to a job advert on your linked in page would probably count as an inducement. The fact that you intend it to be one wouldn't help.
4. But see 1 and 2 above.
Good effort. This is why we're all still here despite the trolls and idiotic replies (i'm sure someone will now find some stupidity I've posted and prove my point further...!!).2. If the rule is expressed as you have quoted it, it is too wide to be enforceable. A non poaching clause that applies to all staff would usually be too wide. Such a clause should be targeted to, for example, staff whom you managed or worked closely with.
3. What is inducement is a question of fact in each case. I think that placing a link to a job advert on your linked in page would probably count as an inducement. The fact that you intend it to be one wouldn't help.
4. But see 1 and 2 above.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff