Post employment restrictions

[Tom Bussey]

Just about to sign a new contract with new employer, but one of the clauses states that upon termination of employment (for whatever reason) I cannot work with 'Prohibited Business' for 6 months after, defining that as:

 

the provision of any service and/or the manufacture/supply/distribution of any product which is similar to and in competition with any line of business carries on by the Company at the Termination Date in which you were directly involved in a senior capacity during the contact period or in relation to which You possessed any Confidential Information at the Termination Date'

 

I'm not fluent in legalese, but this feels very uncomfortable to me, if I quit or was fired I would effectively be out of work for 6 months. My last contract had similar in, but I didn't plan on staying in the area long term, and even if I did there weren't any better employers to work for. This time I'm probably settling indefinitely, and this clause has a definition of being applicable to a 30 mile radius from the office, which would cover the two nearest cities.

 

I've contacted the new company's HR dept. and asked them if the clause can be removed or amended.

 

Does anyone else have similar in their contracts?

Am I blowing this out of proportion?

Do companies ever act on these clauses?

 

It all seems a little OTT for a visualiser who has next to no idea how anything of material importance works when it comes to putting a building together. There's plenty of other clauses in there protecting their intellectual property and client/employee relationships.

[James Vella]

Does anyone else have similar in their contracts?

 

Ive had this same clause at a couple of places I have worked, I had it removed from the contract.

 

Do companies ever act on these clauses?

They can, and I have had my first employer use it against me to stop me from working with their biggest competitor, which is why I now ask for it to be removed.

[Tom Bussey]

Ok, thanks for the reassurance. I've always been quite blasé about signing contracts, but figured I should probably pay a bit more attention this time around. I got a bit scared for a second when I thought new employer might be a previous client of the old employer (they're not thankfully)

 

Anything else to look out for?

[James Vella]

Generally anything I sign I read entirely and if I am unsure about any of it I get it clarified by someone in the know. HR can help you but remember their interest is based in protecting the company they are working for.

[Scott Schroeder]

Non-competes like that are pretty common. Though at least here in the US, certain states like California are cracking down on excessive non compete terms to the point of making them unenforceable.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/26/8280309/amazon-warehouse-jobs-exclusive-noncompete-contracts

 

Personally I think non-competes are absolute garbage for 99% of their use cases. Am I working for Exxon Mobile to create a new bacteria that will convert useless waste water into renewable fuel for automobiles? Sure, a non-compete would probably be good so I don't jump ship with my technology to BP.

[Justin Hunt]

they are mainly in place to prevent you from going after their clients and or staff. They cant stop you from working, even for the opposition, which has been deemed unreasonable in the courts.