Lost job today, bit of advice please
Discussion
Lost my job today at a car parts business, Was on a probation period for 6 months after starting and they have deiced not to keep me on, we disagree on the reason but i digress;
Anyway my main question,
They have said I'm on gardening leave till next thursday, which is fine. however they then continued to say that I am not allowed to work for anyone they consider a competitor for 6 months from that date. It is mentioned in my contract, but how enforcable is this?
I would have thought that after next thursday my contract with them is null and void as its been terminated? Surely it will only cause problems for me as this is my line of work and experience, so thats the job i will be looking to get myself into?
Any advice would be appreciated
Anyway my main question,
They have said I'm on gardening leave till next thursday, which is fine. however they then continued to say that I am not allowed to work for anyone they consider a competitor for 6 months from that date. It is mentioned in my contract, but how enforcable is this?
I would have thought that after next thursday my contract with them is null and void as its been terminated? Surely it will only cause problems for me as this is my line of work and experience, so thats the job i will be looking to get myself into?
Any advice would be appreciated
Edited by Coupe_Daz on Thursday 17th March 19:43
I'm not an expert. But I don't think it works like that.
If you quit, it might be different. But if they are pushing you out the door they can't stop you working. They can either pay you to sit at home, pay you to work, or it's none of their business.
Like I say. No expert but that's my understanding.
If you quit, it might be different. But if they are pushing you out the door they can't stop you working. They can either pay you to sit at home, pay you to work, or it's none of their business.
Like I say. No expert but that's my understanding.
Take professional advice on the specific terms of your contract. Post termination restrictions are regularly enforced, even against relatively junior employees in sales positions. The cost of becoming embroiled in litigation about such restrictions can quickly run to five figures, so good advice early on is essential.
If the op didn't 'pass' his probation then would any covenants in the contract still stand?
I left a company to work for a competitor, they tried to warn me off doing it citing the restrictive covenants in my contract, I took advice and did it anyway and heard nothing. The cost of the advice was negligible so worth it in the end. Each company and situation will be different though.
I left a company to work for a competitor, they tried to warn me off doing it citing the restrictive covenants in my contract, I took advice and did it anyway and heard nothing. The cost of the advice was negligible so worth it in the end. Each company and situation will be different though.
I've worked in the courts for over 25 years and enforce covenants every month on behalf of employer clients, and sometimes act for ordinary working blokes who get clobbered by covenants. I've co authored a book on the subject. The well meaning but amateur advice offered above could be very misleading to the OP.
Much depends on the wording of the covenant. Modern covenants tend to be tightly drawn so as to be enforceable. There might be a question in this case of whether the employer has a sufficient legitimate interest in enforcement. Some employers choose not to enforce covenants, others can be very aggressive about this, using their resources to crush nascent competition. The law on the subject tends to favour the employer, as does the practice of granting interim injunctions on an impressionistic basis without full evidence. Taking expert advice from someone suitably experienced can save a lot of money and intense hassle.
Much depends on the wording of the covenant. Modern covenants tend to be tightly drawn so as to be enforceable. There might be a question in this case of whether the employer has a sufficient legitimate interest in enforcement. Some employers choose not to enforce covenants, others can be very aggressive about this, using their resources to crush nascent competition. The law on the subject tends to favour the employer, as does the practice of granting interim injunctions on an impressionistic basis without full evidence. Taking expert advice from someone suitably experienced can save a lot of money and intense hassle.
Edited by Breadvan73 on Friday 18th March 06:54
It is impossible to tell from this thread what appetite the employer has for enforcement or what prospect of success it would have if it were to sue.
Can the employer stop him working for a competitor? Yes, it can. Whether it will in this case depends on the precise circumstances. I reiterate that, contrary to the opinion of bloke in pub QC everywhere, employment covenants are enforced on a daily basis by courts all over the UK.
Can the employer stop him working for a competitor? Yes, it can. Whether it will in this case depends on the precise circumstances. I reiterate that, contrary to the opinion of bloke in pub QC everywhere, employment covenants are enforced on a daily basis by courts all over the UK.
Edited by Breadvan73 on Friday 18th March 07:02
In that situation, a covenant might well be regarded by a Judge as onerous, because it does not serve to protect trade connection or confidential information. I would not expect a covenant to be upheld in that scenario. Feel free to PM me or post here the precise wording of the restraint and I will give you a free opinion on it.
Breadvan73 said:
Much depends on the wording of the covenant. Modern covenants tend to be tightly drawn so as to be enforceable. There might be a question in this case of whether the employer has a sufficient legitimate interest in enforcement. Some employers choose not to enforce covenants, others can be very aggressive about this, using their resources to crush nascent competition.
Are you serious? I thought the whole point of gardening leave was that that an ex employee agreed to limit their employment opportunities and were paid during that period. Surely once you're not being paid your life is your own?anonymous said:
[redacted]
For a more senior level job than the OP is in, this happened to my next-door neighbour. His new employer was up for a fight, but when legal fees got to £40K and every Counsel's opinion on the contract was different, they bottled it and said enough is enough and reached a compromise where he wouldn't start work for his new employer for 6mths (contract said 12mths) and would be paid half-pay by his old employer.I don't really see how it would be feasible for an ex-employee to have a non-compete clause enforced against them without compensation. It would mean they'd never be able to change jobs in the same field, which is clearly ridiculous, as most people stay in the same industry.
Breadvan73 said:
I am serious, and base my comments on extensive practical experience of this subject.
Sorry, I never meant to question your knowledge or experience, the expression was used to express my own incredulity that such a contract can exist.What I really meant was can an employer really limit your employment opportunities once they're not paying you? I can see that if something like the official secrets act had been signed but otherwise this seems crazy.
Apologies to the OP for hijacking this thread but hopefully we can all learn something.
It is worth remembering the UK courts intensely dislike any restraint of employment or trade.
In reality you are most unlikely to be pursued. Even if you were I doubt that the case would hold water.
You have been sacked after 6 months work. No Employer can seriously expect this to prevent you working in an industry.
Your Human Rights ensure that preventing you from working in circumstances as described will be virtually impossible.
Quite simply contract law CANNOT succeed over you Statutory Rights.
The Statutory Rights are Superior legislation. You have a right to work.
Forget this and get on with your life. Good luck with the job search.
In reality you are most unlikely to be pursued. Even if you were I doubt that the case would hold water.
You have been sacked after 6 months work. No Employer can seriously expect this to prevent you working in an industry.
Your Human Rights ensure that preventing you from working in circumstances as described will be virtually impossible.
Quite simply contract law CANNOT succeed over you Statutory Rights.
The Statutory Rights are Superior legislation. You have a right to work.
Forget this and get on with your life. Good luck with the job search.
The previous post contains a number of false notions.
The conclusion that enforcement may be unlikely in the OP's case may be sound, although we don't know the precise terms of the contract in question, but the reasoning is a bit wonky.
First, there is no statutory right to work. A contractual right to work may often be implied into a particular contract, but that implication will be overriden by an express garden leave clause. Post termination restrictions can be enforceable (depending on their terms) even when the employee is no longer paid.
Human rights law has little or no impact on employment law. A restrictive covenant does not offend against any legally protected human right.
UK Courts enforce restrictive covenants daily. The idea that they don't like them is roughly a century out of date. The Courts pay lip service to the idea that competition cannot be restrained, but in practice frequently grant injunctions which restrict the activities of employees after the employment ends. In the case under discussion, enforcement might well be unlikely, but the widespread bloke in pub notion that restrictive covenants are not enforceable is incorrect, and leads many employees, often earning quote modest salaries, into expensive trouble.
The conclusion that enforcement may be unlikely in the OP's case may be sound, although we don't know the precise terms of the contract in question, but the reasoning is a bit wonky.
First, there is no statutory right to work. A contractual right to work may often be implied into a particular contract, but that implication will be overriden by an express garden leave clause. Post termination restrictions can be enforceable (depending on their terms) even when the employee is no longer paid.
Human rights law has little or no impact on employment law. A restrictive covenant does not offend against any legally protected human right.
UK Courts enforce restrictive covenants daily. The idea that they don't like them is roughly a century out of date. The Courts pay lip service to the idea that competition cannot be restrained, but in practice frequently grant injunctions which restrict the activities of employees after the employment ends. In the case under discussion, enforcement might well be unlikely, but the widespread bloke in pub notion that restrictive covenants are not enforceable is incorrect, and leads many employees, often earning quote modest salaries, into expensive trouble.
Edited by Breadvan73 on Sunday 20th March 07:08
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff