What does this mean? (Employment contract)

sangie595

I agree with the other interpretations. And unless your are very important to the business, attempting to prevent you from working for any competitor would be on dodgy legal grounds. It's fair to say you shouldn't poach clients or employees. Beyond that such a limitation would appear to be draconian. That doesn't mean that they might not be able to enforce it. But it's unlikely. And I doubt they'd try. BUT that's a best guess.

Whoknows

Thank you, I might go to citizens advice tomorrow to see what they say.

sangie595

Whoknows wrote: »

Thank you, I might go to citizens advice tomorrow to see what they say.

They are highly unlikely to have the skill to respond to this kind of enquiry. If you want certainty then you'd need to get a legal opinion, and that is unlikely to be free.

agrinnall

It's unfortunate that the responses the OP is getting now are quite contradictory to the ones received a month ago that may have provided a false basis on which to make a decision to leave. Obviously any view given on here cannot be relied on, but it might be good if zx81 and/or HappyHarry were to return to the thread to start a debate on their original interpretation vs the current one.

steampowered

The company is misinterpreting the clause. I doubt they have actually bothered to read it properly.

The clause does not say anything about not working for competitors in general terms. The clause has only two restrictions, limb (a) and limb (b).

It is only limb (a) which is relevant here. Limb (a) is self-explanatory and is crystal clear. Limb (a) very clearly states that it only applies in relation to customers with whom you were personally engaged or personally responsible.

If the company believes the clause stops you from working for a competitor, ask for them to point out exactly where the clause says this.

If the clause did say "you can't work for a competitor for six months" (it doesn't), then unless you were a CEO or something along those lines, that would be completely legally unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade and could be safely ignored.

TELLIT01

steampowered wrote: »

The company is misinterpreting the clause correctly. I doubt they have actually bothered to read it properly.

The clause does not say anything about not working for competitors in general terms.

I'm not sure how somebody can misinterpret something correctly, but I do believe the clause does say something about not working for a competitor.

"The employee covenants with the Company that he or she will not for a period of six months after the termination of employment under this contract without the prior written consent of the Board in connection with the carrying on of any business, similar to or in competition with the business of plumbing services on his or her own behalf or on behalf of any person, firm or company directly or indirectly:"

If the OP works for a competitor surely they will breach the sections highlighted.

As with most documents containing 'legaleese', the terminology is convoluted. The OP really should consult a solicitor specialising in employment law for a definitive answer.

steampowered

TELLIT01 wrote: »

I'm not sure how somebody can misinterpret something correctly, but I do believe the clause does say something about not working for a competitor.

"The employee covenants with the Company that he or she will not for a period of six months after the termination of employment under this contract without the prior written consent of the Board in connection with the carrying on of any business, similar to or in competition with the business of plumbing services on his or her own behalf or on behalf of any person, firm or company directly or indirectly:"

If the OP works for a competitor surely they will breach the sections highlighted.

This is only the start of the clause. The bit you have highlighted is an incomplete sentence which doesn't make any sense on its own.

The bit you have posted doesn't say the Op can't work for a competitor. It says "in connection with ..."!

You need to read the rest of the clause as well, which is why there is a colon at the end of the extract you quoted.

TELLIT01

steampowered wrote: »

This is only the start of the clause. The bit you have highlighted is an incomplete sentence which doesn't make any sense on its own.

The bit you have posted doesn't say the Op can't work for a competitor. It says "in connection with ..."!

You need to read the rest of the clause as well, which is why there is a colon at the end of the extract you quoted.

The whole thing is so convoluted and full of 'legal speak' as to be almost impossible for the lay reader to accurately interpret. That's why I said they need legal advice. Readers here have so many different interpretations of what it's saying we obviously can't all be right - maybe none of us are.

Gavin83

Whoknows wrote: »

I've now handed my notice in. My current employer is adamant that this means I'm not allowed to work for a competitor for six months at all.

They are saying they are "within their contractural right" to delay the start of my new job by six months and are pointing to the text quoted above.

Now what do I do? Did we all misinterpret the meaning?

I assume they’re planning on paying you for this 6 month period and place you on gardening leave?

joeypesci

I swear contracts are worded in such a way to keep the legal profession in business.

I like ZX81's version instead.