Non-competition Clause?

[Burninator]

Is anyone familiar with these?

Without getting into specifics...but one that says you have to get permission from your company within 6 months of ceasing to work there to work at another company that operates under a specific business model.

Is this common? Is it enforceable?

I'm not seeking employment elsewhere, but I would hate for something like this to bite me in the butt later down the road.

[4X4]

Lol. I remember when I was 20 I got a job at a coatings factory and had to sign something like this. I guess they were afraid I'd take my badass forklifting and chemical mixing skillz elsewhere?

Seriously, if you're being asked to sign something like this, you should really evaluate whether you're happy where you are. Obviously, the idea is that you don't leave them high and dry and move to another company with fresh knowledge of their competition. I suppose that's reasonable in certain fields, especially in research related fields. But if you're an electrician, your bosses suck.

[PIGL]

Burninator,

They are common and can be enforceable (it depends on your industry, the specific langauage of the contract and your specific situation). You really should take the contract to a lawyer and get some advice - anything anyone posts here is just not going to complete enough to answer your question.

[VladtheImpaler]

An unreasonable restriction is not enforceable, but I am sure someone here is much better versed in labour law than I am. A non-compete clause is much more likely to stand up in a PARTNERSHIP arrangement, rather than an EMPLOYMENT contract. The court would consider it highly oppressive to keep a former employee from being able to make a living, unless of course compensation is paid.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

An unreasonable restriction is not enforceable, but I am sure someone here is much better versed in labour law than I am. A non-compete clause is much more likely to stand up in a PARTNERSHIP arrangement, rather than an EMPLOYMENT contract. The court would consider it highly oppressive to keep a former employee from being able to make a living, unless of course compensation is paid.

We tried to get one of these on one of our employees and our lawyer told us to take it out of the agreement for exactly the reasons vlad said above.

[valo403]

They are incredibly common in certain industries, especially where business development/client cultivation is a big part of the job. Enforceability is really dependent on the breadth of the provision, if you're prevented from doing anything it would likely be deemed oppressive and unenforceable, but it's really going to come down to the specific language and the nuances of the particular industry.

[Burninator]

I'm not sure how restrictive it would be. I'll give a silly analogy. Let's say I make sandwiches for a living. My company makes sandwiches, soup and cookies. There are lots of other businesses that make sandwiches. And some businesses that make sandwiches and soup. But most cookie businesses are stand alone. The restriction is for sandwich/soup/cookie businesses only. So chances are that it wouldn't effect me at the present time (which is fine, because I like making sandwiches at my current place). But of course I wouldn't want to restrict myself in the future, and who knows how many sandwich/soup/cookie businesses are going to open up in town. Make sense?

[VladtheImpaler]

The only things that anyone actually cares about are theft of proprietary information and/or clients. As long as you are not planning to do either, nobody will bother trying to enforce any clause against you. Just like an old contract several jobs ago said that I would not work in the personal injury field for 2 years after leaving the firm. Yeah, right. Good luck with that...

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I'm not sure how restrictive it would be. I'll give a silly analogy. Let's say I make sandwiches for a living. My company makes sandwiches, soup and cookies. There are lots of other businesses that make sandwiches. And some businesses that make sandwiches and soup. But most cookie businesses are stand alone. The restriction is for sandwich/soup/cookie businesses only. So chances are that it wouldn't effect me at the present time (which is fine, because I like making sandwiches at my current place). But of course I wouldn't want to restrict myself in the future, and who knows how many sandwich/soup/cookie businesses are going to open up in town. Make sense?

So basically only places that are in pretty much the exact same business as your current employer would be excluded, right? That doesn't seem overly restrictive, especially when there are sub-sectors that you could go to, but again it's really a fact dependent area. If that clause would rule out the vast majority of your employment options it could be oppressive, but it's hard to say.

The other areas that would be considered are the length of the clause and the geographic scope. A 6 month clause is obviously less oppressive than a 2 year clause, and one that allows you to work in Airdrie would be more acceptable than one that forced you to Vancouver. However, the old fact dependent caveat remains as some industries and positions require more encompassing non-competes.

I think maybe the best way to look at it when deciding whether to sign it is to ask yourself whether you could live with the conditions if it is enforceable. If not you're going to have to weigh the desirability of the job against the potential issues you'd face if you try to move on at some point.

BTW, why do you subway people call the club a melt?

[Tron_fdc]

So if you haven't signed anything, can you take proprietary info with you to the next job? I've always wondered that. I work for a company that is basically built on a set of component drawings (10 000 of em) and I've always wondered what's stopping someone from simply photocopying them, and taking them to their next employer.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

So if you haven't signed anything, can you take proprietary info with you to the next job? I've always wondered that. I work for a company that is basically built on a set of component drawings (10 000 of em) and I've always wondered what's stopping someone from simply photocopying them, and taking them to their next employer.

I'm not really familiar with this, but I believe that would be theft of intellectual property, a criminal offense. A company that used that material would probably be liable for damages as well.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not really familiar with this, but I believe that would be theft of intellectual property, a criminal offense. A company that used that material would probably be liable for damages as well.

Doesn't stuff like this happen in the IT sector all the time though? If it's not patented, I've always thought it was more or less fair game. We're pretty protective of all our info because of that.

I always thought it was like Pepsi hiring Coke employees to get their secret recipes.

[Envitro]

You can't patent software...

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Doesn't stuff like this happen in the IT sector all the time though? If it's not patented, I've always thought it was more or less fair game. We're pretty protective of all our info because of that.

I always thought it was like Pepsi hiring Coke employees to get their secret recipes.

Again, not really my area of expertise at all so take this with a grain of salt, but I believe that even non-patent protected items can be protected by theft of trade secrets type laws.

[Titan]

Another factor is the level of your position in your company. The president or chief sub sauce inventor is going to have more problems than the guy making the sandwiches. I have seen some wonderful NC clauses followed up by very aggressive cease and desist letters and then nothing after. As said above so much is fact dependent on the industry and your position and the actual wording of the clause. See a lawyer that does this stuff regularly.

[Locke]

These are fairly standard in specialized industries or something like that, it would really depend on what we're talking about here. But, like Vlad said, they cant prohibit you from making a living unless you were compensated.

Unless you were privy to some sort of 'trade secret' that your company doesnt want anyone else to know about they wouldnt use this. Its kind of useless and expensive to just throw in to every employment contract.

[Burninator]

I suppose I should mention that this is an addendum to my previous sandwich maker agreement which basically stated that I couldn't even look at a sandwich without their permission, which would obviously be unreasonable. However according to what a lot of you are saying this one probably isn't unreasonable and/or that restrictive. I honestly doubt that they would enforce it for myself. I'm not high enough to know what's in the secret sauce or anything like that, so it can't be a big deal if I don't sign it. But I do worry if I don't sign how it would make me look with the head sandwich makers. Although I wouldn't be the only sandwich maker not agreeing to it.

[valo403]

This thread is making me hungry

[Barnes]

I have one of these. It is my understanding that no one has successfully enforced a non competition clause. At least, last time I briefly looked into it.

I do know that they are not legal in some places like California. Some companies will enter into informal agreements not to poach like Apple and Google.

[Locke]

WTF is with the sandwiches? No one in their right mind would prohibit a man from his God-Given right to make sandwiches to his heart's content!

Sweet God people, is there no decency left in this world?

They're delicious. They're very satisfying!