What does this non-competition clause sound like to you?

The Employee agrees and covenants that if the Employee's employment is terminated, for any reason, by either [company name] or the Employee whether or not during the Probationary Period, that the Employee shall not, either directly or indirectly, either as principal or agent, or as director or manager of a Company, or otherwise carry on or be engaged in or have an interest in, any similar business to that carried on by [company name], in any location for a period of three (3) months from the termination of the Employee's employment with [company name] for any reason, provided however, that these provisions shall not in any way restrict the Employee's right to accept employment from, or to engage in, any business not competitive with that of [company name] at the time of such termination.

2. The Employee agrees and covenants that if the Employee's employment is terminated for any reason by either [company name] or the Employee, whether or not during the Probationary Period, the Employee may accept employment with any business, subject to paragraph 1 herein, but the Employee shall not contact or solicit business from any of the clients and customers of [company name].

Paragraph 1 sounds like a bum deal doesn't it? I'm not a lawyer but the wording sounds like I can't do business on my own anymore or work in a related industry.

Got off the phone with my potential new boss and he said na, just means I can't do business with THEIR customers. Which is fine by me, but hmmm the first clause doesn't exactly sound like that.

reply to post by FlySolo


Clause does state that, states that within 3 months you can't basically start up your own business in same field but if you get job from another company in same field you can accept the job.

reply to post by OrphanApology


It's this line in bold...

that these provisions shall not in any way restrict the Employee's right to accept employment from, or to engage in, any business not competitive with that of [company name] at the time of such termination.

Every business in my line of work IS competitive. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong?

For three months seems to be the key term here

reply to post by FlySolo

The purpose of the clause is to stop you starting up a business of your own on the back of stealing the clients you identified through working with the company (or taking such clients to a rival company), and the restriction only lasts for three months.

FlySolo
The Employee agrees and covenants that if the Employee's employment is terminated, for any reason, by either [company name] or the Employee whether or not during the Probationary Period, that the Employee shall not, either directly or indirectly, either as principal or agent, or as director or manager of a Company, or otherwise carry on or be engaged in or have an interest in, any similar business to that carried on by [company name], in any location for a period of three (3) months from the termination of the Employee's employment with [company name] for any reason, provided however, that these provisions shall not in any way restrict the Employee's right to accept employment from, or to engage in, any business not competitive with that of [company name] at the time of such termination.

Oh yeah, I see what you're saying.

Well, I guess you have to choose then, is the job worth not being able to look for work and accept a job within same field within a 3 month period?

Or your could try striking out the line and write your own that states what your boss stated, half the time legal departments don't pay attention. I have done this before.

reply to post by DISRAELI


I understand that. It's clear in the second paragraph not to business with their customers. What's the purpose of the first paragraph?

reply to post by FlySolo


Yeah the first paragraph is worded to seem like you can't find and accept a job in same field at all.

Any company that's "competitive".

Well if you work in retail then that would suck wouldn't?

I'm not saying you do but just making an example.

reply to post by OrphanApology


I don't know. Here's what else they say...

Nothing in this agreement shall constitute a guarantee by the Employer to provide specific work to the Employee, nor shall any part of this agreement constitute a guarantee by the Employer for any specified minimum hours of work per day or per week for the Employee.

So in short, they want my customers and a guarantee I won't compete, but can't guarantee me anything. 3 months may as well be three years if I have to start from scratch again.

reply to post by FlySolo

The second paragraph is what they're really worried about, but it would be difficult to have ANY involvement in the same line of business without coming into contact with their clients, so the first paragraph is a more all-embracing way of enforcing the second.

reply to post by OrphanApology


I'm in the telecom industry and I install structured cabling. Spent over $1000 to get myself certified so I can move forward. I'll be damned if I'm restricted to flipping burgers

reply to post by FlySolo


I can understand the banking field having such restrictive clauses but not in what you do.

The wording essentially prevents you from getting a job in your field for three months.

That's ludicrous.

I would just strike it out and sign at the bottom. If they come back and say it doesn't fly, then fine.

Edit: Be sure to initial strike out. Also, and date.

FlySolo
reply to post by OrphanApology

 

I'm in the telecom industry and I install structured cabling. Spent over $1000 to get myself certified so I can move forward. I'll be damned if I'm restricted to flipping burgers

If that is the case then it's behooves you to reach a better deal for yourself

reply to post by dashen


I countered it with six-month employment before I sign the first clause. The second clause can stand for obvious reasons. Waiting to see what they say. I think they should just buy me out and be done with it. I've got a client with 800 stores across the country.

reply to post by FlySolo

Figure how much a buy out is worth and try to sneak in a lucrative break-up clause if it will be feasable.

Sounds to me like they want to hire you, bring onboard your clients, fire you, restrict you from dealing with said clients for 3 months.
Any company with 800 stores that doesnt have "their guy" for 3 months would probably stick with the company you gave them too.

reply to post by tinner07


I know. My spidey sense doesn't feel right. I have a feeling their plan would be to keep me as busy as possible for 3 months of probation so I won't have any time for anyone else, which would result in all my clients going elsewhere. Then let me sit at home waiting by the phone when things slow down. And things slow down in this industry.

3 months? That's very mild. Many contracts are FAR more draconian with much longer periods of time of "non-competition." In addition, they can say that anything you produce or invent while working for them, whether it is on company time or not, is owned by them.

Personally, I don't think it should cover any probationary period, but the provisions themselves are fairly mild compared to others I have seen.

reply to post by schuyler


good point

Mine had something similar, but they had an actual list of the places I was not to work for. I figured I could accept that as the odds I would wind up getting a job at another company exactly like the one I am currently working for was pretty slim and the list was not extremely long.

I don't know what you do, but maybe a list is an option?