Employment law. Non compete / convene ats

tripled

You would likely be in breach of contract, which would be unlawful but not illegal. If your current employer wanted to sue you for damages, to be successful they would need to demonstrate the restriction was reasonable, valid, and they had suffered a loss due to your actions. Provide you don't take any client lists or other data with you, or share or exploit any other privileged information that could undermine your old employer, it would be difficult for them. What would not be difficult would be to refuse to give you a reference. When you give your notice in, don't be surprised if you get put on gardening leave and all your access to company assets immediately withdrawn.

getmore4less

I think one approach is to stick the old contract terms in front of the new employer and ask will they defend any claim against you or them or will they just drop you and take the hit on paying you salary for some period.

MEM62

Undervalued said:

MEM62 said:

This subject has come up before and some have a different view to me.  I have checked my position and our HR advisors - an industry leader - conforms that my understanding is correct.
Any restrictive covenant that is in your employment contract is, in effect not enforceable.  The basis for this is that your employment contract - together with any and all terms therein -  terminates when your employment ends.  If an employer wants to impose a restrictive covenant that is enforceable beyond the term of your employment then this needs to be a separate / additional document.  On that basis OP, I would be of the opinion that you take the offer if you wish.  

Unless they are basing their advice on a relevant ruling from a high enough court to set a legal precedent it does no such thing. I am not aware of such a ruling but by all means cite one if it exists?

Otherwise, my view remains that you are wrong. Their advice may be good practice but I don't think it is any more than that.

There is no reason why some terms of a contract cannot exist for longer than others, in fact it is very common. Equally, an employment "contract" is far more than just a piece of paper with the word contract on it. In fact there doesn't even need to be a piece of paper at all for there to be a binding contract. If there is a piece of paper, it could perfectly well contain the terms of more than one "contract". If a contract has a number of terms it is perfectly normal to have a further term stating that if any term is subsequently proved to be invalid it does not invalidate the rest

And so on....

As I stated, this has been challenged before - hence my opening sentence.  I have specifically checked and confirmed the advice as a direct result of those previous debates.  If anyone wants a background to that they can review the previous posts.  There is little to be gained by getting into it a third time on this thread.    

General_Grant

MEM62 said:

Undervalued said:

MEM62 said:

This subject has come up before and some have a different view to me.  I have checked my position and our HR advisors - an industry leader - conforms that my understanding is correct.
Any restrictive covenant that is in your employment contract is, in effect not enforceable.  The basis for this is that your employment contract - together with any and all terms therein -  terminates when your employment ends.  If an employer wants to impose a restrictive covenant that is enforceable beyond the term of your employment then this needs to be a separate / additional document.  On that basis OP, I would be of the opinion that you take the offer if you wish.  

Unless they are basing their advice on a relevant ruling from a high enough court to set a legal precedent it does no such thing. I am not aware of such a ruling but by all means cite one if it exists?

Otherwise, my view remains that you are wrong. Their advice may be good practice but I don't think it is any more than that.

There is no reason why some terms of a contract cannot exist for longer than others, in fact it is very common. Equally, an employment "contract" is far more than just a piece of paper with the word contract on it. In fact there doesn't even need to be a piece of paper at all for there to be a binding contract. If there is a piece of paper, it could perfectly well contain the terms of more than one "contract". If a contract has a number of terms it is perfectly normal to have a further term stating that if any term is subsequently proved to be invalid it does not invalidate the rest

And so on....

As I stated, this has been challenged before - hence my opening sentence.  I have specifically checked and confirmed the advice as a direct result of those previous debates.  If anyone wants a background to that they can review the previous posts.  There is little to be gained by getting into it a third time on this thread.    

To save your having to post over and over again that you have checked with someone whose advice and standing you believe and respect, why don't you provide evidence?  Or did they not provide evidence to you?