Restrictions on working

baxy

My friendhas been made redundant. Can the company that made her redundant restrict her future work in a similar company. Could understand it if she left to take up work with a rival but this was not the case. It surely isnt fair as the industry she was in is the only work experience she has had since leaving college.
She had signed a contract on taking up employment but her redundancy letter clearly states her contract terminates on 20th February 2009
Any advice would be appreciated. Looked on ACAS site but couldnt find anything relevant.
Thanks

McKneff

The thing to do is look in her contract. Sometimes it states just that restriction. Usually within a certain nmber miles within a certain time scale. Tell her to check that and come back onto here.

olly300

1. Depends on what she does
2. Depends how the exclusion clause was written.
3. The timescale of the clause

Rule of thumb is that if the clause is either:
1. for a very large company with multiple clients OR
2. ambiguously written
it can be ignored.

Examples of invalid clauses:
1. if I worked for a multi-national company say BT and they have clients which include businesses ranging from large supermarkets like Tescos to one man companies then to having a clause that says she can't work for any clients is an unfair contract term as it's unlikely there would be a business in the country that wouldn't be a customer of BT.

2. Say I worked for a company of 5 people with clients in one industry and the contract clause stated I couldn't work in a similar role for a year the entire clause could be ignored as the term is too long.

If the clause was tested in a court of law the invalid parts would be struck out and not replaced which is why you can ignore them.

Examples of valid clauses:
1. Working for a one man business with most clients within a 10 mile radius with a clause stating that I couldn't set up business or work for a business doing the same thing within a 10 mile radius for 6 months. The clause is valid because it's specific, the timescale is not too long because of the nature of the business and there is nothing stopping you working further away.

2. Working for a very large company in the London area doing detailed and confidential financial or legal work with clients in most industry areas in the London area with a clause stating that I couldn't take up a similar position in the London area for 3 months with the same clients. Again the clause is valid because it's specific and the timescale is not too long due to the nature of the business.

baxy

It states 'relevant period' of 3 months and 'relevant area' - the world.
The area seems a bit over the top.

LittleVoice

baxy wrote: »

It states 'relevant period' of 3 months and 'relevant area' - the world.
The area seems a bit over the top.

Three months isn't really very long - especially if she is receiving pay in lieu of notice and that notice is itself more than a month.

How long has she been employed by the company? Will she be working her notice or being paid in lieu? How is she getting on in her job search?

baxy

she got 3 weeks garden leave which finishes this week. So money will be very tight soon. She was with the company for three and a half years but as she is under 25 she only got 3 x half weeks pay for redundancy.
She has an interview tomorrow which is why I said I would go on this forum on her behalf.

LittleVoice

In her circumstances then the three months will be more significant.

It does seem unfair given that she has been dismissed by the company rather than resigning and so is not job searching by choice. Does she do some specialised work that could not be useful in an "unsimilar" company?

jad

baxy wrote: »

It states 'relevant period' of 3 months and 'relevant area' - the world.
The area seems a bit over the top.

The 'relevant' period bit could be enforcable but...the 'relevant area' part is probably too broad to be enforcable.

As I understand it, these clauses came across from US contracts a few years ago (where they are generally more enforcable), but they are quite difficult to enforce under UK law, as they are often considered to be too restrictive and unfair.

Having said that, they become more enforcable (duration and area) the higher up the executive ladder you travel. Also will depend on what field your friend was working in, what their job was, etc.

McKneff

where has this 3 x half weeks pay come from, surely if she has been with the company over 3 years she should have got 3 full weeks redundancy pay. How old exactly is she

baxy

anniehanlon wrote: »

where has this 3 x half weeks pay come from, surely if she has been with the company over 3 years she should have got 3 full weeks redundancy pay. How old exactly is she

She is 22 so think this is correct cos under 25s unfairly are entitled to 1/2 weeks redundancy pay for each year worked which is paid on top of the pay for the 3 weeks 'garden leave'

McKneff

Thanks for that, when you said she was under 25 i thought you meant she was just under 25, I think the age when half weeks apply is actually 22 so it looks as if it correct.