Legal advice - confidential info

AHarvey · 12 Nov 2015 at 16:46

Hi all,

So recently several of us were made redundant from our place of business, I always like to keep things on good terms for references and I fully understand why it happened and have no issues with it.

However one of the others have recently received a letter stating they have reasonable belief he's contacted suppliers/customers of the company. That they've contacted the police and they are investigating etc.

He's panicking and says he's done nothing wrong and I tend to believe him.

It's a private company. What sort of law could he have broken? I'm going to do a little research for him before he has another meltdown.

Links to legal advice would be great, the more I can get to him the better

Thanks

Burnsy2023 · 12 Nov 2015 at 16:49

I can't think of a criminal offence that the police would be interested in. There might be a civil case if he had something in his employment contract.

Jono · 12 Nov 2015 at 16:49

Reasonable belief isn't proof. If he's really done nothing wrong (what HAS he done, if anything?) then he needn't worry, surely.

Nodiggidy123 · 12 Nov 2015 at 16:50

Has he broken any laws at all? I don't think so

Basher · 12 Nov 2015 at 16:50

Would the police care?

Avenged7Fold · 12 Nov 2015 at 16:50

If there is no proof then nothing can be done. You would only be breaking terms set out in the contract of employment, for which a company can hold an individual responsible and claim money based on resultant damages. There should be the usual non competes in there.

What line of work was it or what industry?

AHarvey · 12 Nov 2015 at 16:51

Burnsy2023 said:
I can't think of a criminal offence that the police would be interested in. There might be a civil case if he had something in his employment contract.

Due to the nature of the business and 2 weeks before they made us redundant we all had to sign a clause thing stating we wouldn't poach customers, do the same job elsewhere for X time etc.

Jono said:
Reasonable belief isn't proof. If he's really done nothing wrong (what HAS he done, if anything?) then he needn't worry, surely.

That's what I said to him, but he's just one of those people that worries about the simplest things, and I mean he really gets anxious about things.

Burnsy2023 · 12 Nov 2015 at 16:53

AHarvey said:
Due to the nature of the business and 2 weeks before they made us redundant we all had to sign a clause thing stating we wouldn't poach customers, do the same job elsewhere for X time etc.

If he was poaching customers and did sign that addendum, then he would be liable for any damages to the company and could be sued. That's all civil rather than criminal though.

cheesyboy · 12 Nov 2015 at 16:56

Utter nonsense. Civil matter - they would need to instruct legal representation to go after him.

police ffs...

cheesyboy · 12 Nov 2015 at 16:58

He should respond with a warning that any more contact along those lines would be considered harassment and HE would go to the police.

Were they cowboys when you worked there?

blundaruss · 12 Nov 2015 at 16:58

Coyld someone be pranking him?

Jono · 12 Nov 2015 at 16:58

AHarvey said:
Due to the nature of the business and 2 weeks before they made us redundant we all had to sign a clause thing stating we wouldn't poach customers, do the same job elsewhere for X time etc.

I wouldn't have signed that. I'd have (at least tried to) got it changed so that last clause only applied if I left by my own choice.

(That said, I probably signed something almost identical at my previous company - I don't really remember. But it seems daft that you wouldn't be allowed to use your experience in whatever field / role it was anywhere else.
I can understand them not wanting you to discuss certain things with the new people but that's what patents and NDAs are for, surely?)
Hang on - they made you sign that thing 2 weeks before they made you redundant... did you know you were being made redundant before the two weeks? That's just stupid.

Basher · 12 Nov 2015 at 17:05

Jono said:
I wouldn't have signed that. I'd have (at least tried to) got it changed so that last clause only applied if I left by my own choice.

(That said, I probably signed something almost identical at my previous company - I don't really remember. But it seems daft that you wouldn't be allowed to use your experience in whatever field / role it was anywhere else.
I can understand them not wanting you to discuss certain things with the new people but that's what patents and NDAs are for, surely?)
Hang on - they made you sign that thing 2 weeks before they made you redundant... did you know you were being made redundant before the two weeks? That's just stupid.

It's pretty much unenforceable anyway, unless they're prepared to pay you for the amount of time they don't want you to work in that industry for.

Avenged7Fold · 12 Nov 2015 at 17:09

Jono said:
I wouldn't have signed that. I'd have (at least tried to) got it changed so that last clause only applied if I left by my own choice.

It is pretty standard in many industries and very reasonable. It usually isn't a very large amount of time, normally months. Any industry where this is standard practice normally has a similar clauses built into the employment contract. Usually the form you sign at the end of employment is not a contract but rather acknowledgement that you understand your non compete clauses. It just serves as a reminder and an additional piece paper argument against the employee if he did decide to break his non competes.

Basher said:
It's pretty much unenforceable anyway, unless they're prepared to pay you for the amount of time they don't want you to work in that industry for.

It is quite enforceable depending on the case. If you were a solicitor with non compete clauses (preventing you from taking a customer away or working with the companies customers for 6 months) but you went and took the companies biggest clients which you previously worked with, then you could definitely be held responsible.

Thekwango · 12 Nov 2015 at 17:09

Jono said:
Hang on - they made you sign that thing 2 weeks before they made you redundant... did you know you were being made redundant before the two weeks? That's just stupid.

that's my thinking. were you folks all aware you were being made redundant when you were asked to sign? not that it matters now - just curious.

Basher · 12 Nov 2015 at 17:14

Avenged7Fold said:
It is pretty standard in many industries and very reasonable. It usually isn't a very large amount of time, normally months. Any industry where this is standard practice normally has a similar clauses built into the employment contract. Usually the form you sign at the end of employment is not a contract but rather acknowledgement that you understand your non compete clauses. It just serves as a reminder and an additional piece paper argument against the employee if he did decide to break his non competes.

Standard, perhaps but not always that reasonable. For the most part it is incredibly unlikely to be enforced, anyway.

Terminal_Boy · 12 Nov 2015 at 17:16

Avenged7Fold said:
It is pretty standard in many industries and very reasonable. It usually isn't a very large amount of time, normally months. Any industry where this is standard practice normally has a similar clauses built into the employment contract. Usually the form you sign at the end of employment is not a contract but rather acknowledgement that you understand your non compete clauses. It just serves as a reminder and an additional piece paper argument against the employee if he did decide to break his non competes.

It sounds like the OP was only asked to sign the 'non compete' document on or after receiving notice of redundancy and his original contract didn't contain such a clause.

I'd imagine a good employment lawyer would tear the previous employer apart if this went to a civil court.

As others have pointed out, Plod won't be interested.

DRZ · 12 Nov 2015 at 17:21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Europe

The general rule is that all restraint of trade clauses are unenforceable at common law. However,
the Court will enforce such clauses if they are considered reasonable with reference to the
interests of the parties and do not breach the public interest in free trade. So if this does go
to court then it will be messy. The clauses in the contract must be no more than is necessary to
protect the legitimate interests of the party relying upon it. No one is allowed to restrict
competition just for the sake of it. However, the Court will not look into the adequacy of
consideration, i.e. the court will not consider whether the party that has been restrained has
been paid enough for that restraint. It will be for the Claimant to prove on a balance of
probabilities that the clause is protecting their legitimate interests.

Avenged7Fold · 12 Nov 2015 at 17:25

Companies are almost always fine with working in the same industry as long as it doesn't directly effect their running. Though it is unlikely to be enforced but that is only through the choice of the company, it is definitely enforceable. The clauses are there so that someone doesn't behave maliciously toward their former employer due to being let go. They are not there to restrain them from joining the same industry.

Look at it this way. If you quite obviously and directly compete with your old company, you will likely run into trouble. If you just ended up at another company with a similar job and none of your clients follow you over there, then there is no issue.

Pawnless Endgame · 12 Nov 2015 at 17:26

The topic of this thread is called "garden leave". What the OP's friend has signed is a form where he isn't allowed to work as a competitor or for a competitor for x amount of time, due to trade secrets. An example of this is Formula 1. If you previously worked for Ferarri, you wouldn't be allowed to join Mercedes straight away.