Best places for resources on job contracts

DullGreyGuy

Kai_63 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Kai_63 said:

My concern is that the latter is very broad. If I'm working anywhere within a competitor's business (and this company's competitors will be very large companies with a broad range of services) even if it's nothing to do with my current work, I wouldn't be able to take a role. 

Yes you would.
Clauses that are too broad are very rarely enforceable.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-200-3455?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)

This is so useful. So is it something I could raise now to get the clauses redefined or just wait if and when I need to at the end of my contract?

It all depends on what you do for a living, if there are geographical bounds etc. 

It's interesting that you say your actual constraint is on clients not employers. Do you work in sales? Are you high volume low margin or low volume high margin? How specialist is your role to your industry etc? All these things have an impact. 

So lets say you are claims handler for Admiral and you are relocating to Bristol so get a job in Direct Line doing the same. A clause based on clients is going to be unenforceable, your not in sales its a commodity product so millions of prospective clients and little chance of you even knowing who 1% of Admiral's clients are. 

Now, if you are the direct of sales for a multi-million pound company who's business all comes from a dozen clients who you're on first name terms with all of their board members and you go to your current employers direct competitor with your little black book of numbers then its more likely a clause of the same duration would stand up. 

Unless there are some obvious bounds you need put in there that would make a massive difference then you are generally better leaving them as big and wide as possible because that gives you more chance of defending a claim should the need come up. If you negotiate a few minor concessions you risk still being caught by them but now the chances of them being enforceable have increased. 

Kai_63

DullGreyGuy said:

Kai_63 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Kai_63 said:

My concern is that the latter is very broad. If I'm working anywhere within a competitor's business (and this company's competitors will be very large companies with a broad range of services) even if it's nothing to do with my current work, I wouldn't be able to take a role. 

Yes you would.
Clauses that are too broad are very rarely enforceable.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-200-3455?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)

This is so useful. So is it something I could raise now to get the clauses redefined or just wait if and when I need to at the end of my contract?

It all depends on what you do for a living, if there are geographical bounds etc. 

It's interesting that you say your actual constraint is on clients not employers. Do you work in sales? Are you high volume low margin or low volume high margin? How specialist is your role to your industry etc? All these things have an impact. 

So lets say you are claims handler for Admiral and you are relocating to Bristol so get a job in Direct Line doing the same. A clause based on clients is going to be unenforceable, your not in sales its a commodity product so millions of prospective clients and little chance of you even knowing who 1% of Admiral's clients are. 

Now, if you are the direct of sales for a multi-million pound company who's business all comes from a dozen clients who you're on first name terms with all of their board members and you go to your current employers direct competitor with your little black book of numbers then its more likely a clause of the same duration would stand up. 

Unless there are some obvious bounds you need put in there that would make a massive difference then you are generally better leaving them as big and wide as possible because that gives you more chance of defending a claim should the need come up. If you negotiate a few minor concessions you risk still being caught by them but now the chances of them being enforceable have increased. 

So it focuses on clients but does at the beginning say any business relating to any activity of which I was actively and materially engaged in so that also covers competitors I think?

It does seem very broad and it sounds like it would be in my interest to keep it that way.

I'm reasonably senior, number 3 from the top (in the UK) within a large global organisation.

Grumpy_chap

Kai_63 said:

This is so useful. So is it something I could raise now to get the clauses redefined or just wait if and when I need to at the end of my contract?

Yes, it is something you could raise now.  It may quite possibly result in the withdrawal of the job offer.

It is also something you could raise at the end of your contract.  Doing so will quite likely result in the current company taking a very keen interest in what you do next.  

I suspect most people faced with this type of clause say nothing ever, then simply start whatever next job they do and the current company simply realise they can't do much to enforce the clause they wrote.
It really comes down to reasonableness. 
Are you in a role where you'd be directly taking customers?
Would the next company you might well work for have contracts anyway with the customer base for the current company?

DullGreyGuy

Kai_63 said:
I'm reasonably senior, number 3 from the top (in the UK) within a large global organisation.

These kinds of statements are highly subjective, in my world, assuming the UK is a decent sized entity for a large global player would mean you are likely to be the Deputy CxO of the UK hold co meaning you are fairly likely to be CxO of a UK subsidiary and potential CEO of a UK sub-subsidiary. Obviously monies vary depend on what letter the x is so lets go for a more modest O rather than F so probably around £250k and some decent bonuses. 

If you are operating at that sort of level contract negotiations are more open than lower levels plus you can also potentially seek indemnification from your next employer if you feel there is a material risk of it being caught by the clause. At that sort of level of role employers will consider taking on the risk to get the right person. 

Unfortunately in a former employers that could be considered "large global" given billion pound turnover in some countries we had just a Head of, Claims Managers and Claims assistants, so third in country was the lowest role that existed and salaries were more like £20k so they sign or they dont get the job and no one would consider indemnification. 

Marcon

Kai_63 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Kai_63 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Kai_63 said:

My concern is that the latter is very broad. If I'm working anywhere within a competitor's business (and this company's competitors will be very large companies with a broad range of services) even if it's nothing to do with my current work, I wouldn't be able to take a role. 

Yes you would.
Clauses that are too broad are very rarely enforceable.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-200-3455?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)

This is so useful. So is it something I could raise now to get the clauses redefined or just wait if and when I need to at the end of my contract?

It all depends on what you do for a living, if there are geographical bounds etc. 

It's interesting that you say your actual constraint is on clients not employers. Do you work in sales? Are you high volume low margin or low volume high margin? How specialist is your role to your industry etc? All these things have an impact. 

So lets say you are claims handler for Admiral and you are relocating to Bristol so get a job in Direct Line doing the same. A clause based on clients is going to be unenforceable, your not in sales its a commodity product so millions of prospective clients and little chance of you even knowing who 1% of Admiral's clients are. 

Now, if you are the direct of sales for a multi-million pound company who's business all comes from a dozen clients who you're on first name terms with all of their board members and you go to your current employers direct competitor with your little black book of numbers then its more likely a clause of the same duration would stand up. 

Unless there are some obvious bounds you need put in there that would make a massive difference then you are generally better leaving them as big and wide as possible because that gives you more chance of defending a claim should the need come up. If you negotiate a few minor concessions you risk still being caught by them but now the chances of them being enforceable have increased. 

So it focuses on clients but does at the beginning say any business relating to any activity of which I was actively and materially engaged in so that also covers competitors I think?

It does seem very broad and it sounds like it would be in my interest to keep it that way.

I'm reasonably senior, number 3 from the top (in the UK) within a large global organisation.

In that case, get some proper (paid for) professional advice from an employment lawyer who has seen the whole contract.

Kai_63

Thank you all for the advice. I will have a think but I have been considering getting some paid for advice given the level of role as it's difficult to share much more here. 

But the info I have will provide good context should I go down that route.

Undervalued

Kai_63 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Kai_63 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Kai_63 said:

My concern is that the latter is very broad. If I'm working anywhere within a competitor's business (and this company's competitors will be very large companies with a broad range of services) even if it's nothing to do with my current work, I wouldn't be able to take a role. 

Yes you would.
Clauses that are too broad are very rarely enforceable.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-200-3455?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)

This is so useful. So is it something I could raise now to get the clauses redefined or just wait if and when I need to at the end of my contract?

It all depends on what you do for a living, if there are geographical bounds etc. 

It's interesting that you say your actual constraint is on clients not employers. Do you work in sales? Are you high volume low margin or low volume high margin? How specialist is your role to your industry etc? All these things have an impact. 

So lets say you are claims handler for Admiral and you are relocating to Bristol so get a job in Direct Line doing the same. A clause based on clients is going to be unenforceable, your not in sales its a commodity product so millions of prospective clients and little chance of you even knowing who 1% of Admiral's clients are. 

Now, if you are the direct of sales for a multi-million pound company who's business all comes from a dozen clients who you're on first name terms with all of their board members and you go to your current employers direct competitor with your little black book of numbers then its more likely a clause of the same duration would stand up. 

Unless there are some obvious bounds you need put in there that would make a massive difference then you are generally better leaving them as big and wide as possible because that gives you more chance of defending a claim should the need come up. If you negotiate a few minor concessions you risk still being caught by them but now the chances of them being enforceable have increased. 

So it focuses on clients but does at the beginning say any business relating to any activity of which I was actively and materially engaged in so that also covers competitors I think?

It does seem very broad and it sounds like it would be in my interest to keep it that way.

I'm reasonably senior, number 3 from the top (in the UK) within a large global organisation.

In which case I would suggest you get some proper legal advice.

I would however add that even if the non compete clause is too broad and therefore unenforceable (which may well be the case) one threatening solicitor's letter to a prospective employer about them inciting you to break your contract could easily make them look elsewhere, rather that getting involved in a costly legal dispute unless there are truly exceptional reasons why they want you and not another candidate.

As mentioned earlier, we can only speculate about how much (if at all) the company may be willing to deviate from their standard terms to employ you.

On-the-coast

I’m with @Grumpy_chap on this.  

Also going in lawyered up would make me think twice as an employer unless it was a board level position. 

I’ve seen these clauses and have ignored them / not “poked the bear” for the reasons given - as have a few of my colleagues who’ve been let go.  I’m senior enough that my us company would like this to apply to me… but not senior enough that they’d waste money chasing up a probably losing proposition in the courts. 

They are largely unenforceable in uk law…