tl;dr - I've had a few of these over the years and sought out legal advice - the gist of which is yes they can be enforceable but they need to be reasonable and protect a legit business interest not just used as tools to keep pay lower/try to heavily restrict people's options for leaving.
Yes, in theory, so long as the contract is deemed to be enforceable/fair etc.
Yes; 3 months notice period + 3 months after you officially finish working there. Do you expect to be working there during notice or just told to leave as soon as you hand it in? In the latter case yes that's 6 months of twiddling your thumbs, otherwise it's just carrying on working in your notice period for 3 months then having a 3 month break were you can't work - *if* the contract is fair/enforcible.
Nah it's 3 months after the end of his contract, so 6 in total from the point he hands his notice in (when he'll either have 3 months more working his notice or 3 months at home on full pay but still technically an employee...) it's specifically post-termination when this applies ergo after the 3 month notice period - otherwise it's completely moot anyway.
^^^ this, that's the key issue - is it fair, it's not necessarily as simple as 'it's not fair if you're not getting paid' but there are some obvious factors they might look at.
Firstly duration - 3 months might well be reasonable, longer periods like 6 months or 12 months or more might be deemed unreasonable (and the non-compete void) for a junior employee but reasonable for an exec or senior salesperson with client contacts etc.
Geographical scope - where does it actually apply - if they say worldwide then that needs some serious justification. A classic case/example is hairdressers - they may have a non-compete that's deemed reasonable to prevent them from quitting and setting up shop next door or in the same village for x months (inevitably taking their regular customers with them)... but it's not so reasonable to say they can't work anywhere in the county.
Who is counted as a competitor? That shouldn't be too broad either. Also working at a large competitor but for a different part of the business to the division that competes with the former employer shouldn't necessarily be prevented.
Also, the role OP has is important, what is the contract seeking to protect? If he's a receptionist or IT support or a maintenance/facilities guy then who cares - he's just some generic job person unconnected with the core business activities - if however he's a salesperson or exec or key R&D person then there might be things they legitimately want to protect.
The broad principle is that the courts need to balance being able to protect legitimate business interests vs not restricting people's rights to practice their trade.
The other thing to watch out for is working for clients - that can be more easily restricted than working for competitors because there will often be no poaching agreements signed between the employer & clients that employees are unaware of - much easier to leverage those against a client than to fight the ex-employee - can lead to job offers being rescinded (if someone at the client screws up and doesn't realise that poaching people is iffy) or it can mean the client needs to do a deal and buy out the person they want to hire.
Yes, in theory, so long as the contract is deemed to be enforceable/fair etc.
Yes; 3 months notice period + 3 months after you officially finish working there. Do you expect to be working there during notice or just told to leave as soon as you hand it in? In the latter case yes that's 6 months of twiddling your thumbs, otherwise it's just carrying on working in your notice period for 3 months then having a 3 month break were you can't work - *if* the contract is fair/enforcible.
Nah it's 3 months after the end of his contract, so 6 in total from the point he hands his notice in (when he'll either have 3 months more working his notice or 3 months at home on full pay but still technically an employee...) it's specifically post-termination when this applies ergo after the 3 month notice period - otherwise it's completely moot anyway.
^^^ this, that's the key issue - is it fair, it's not necessarily as simple as 'it's not fair if you're not getting paid' but there are some obvious factors they might look at.
Firstly duration - 3 months might well be reasonable, longer periods like 6 months or 12 months or more might be deemed unreasonable (and the non-compete void) for a junior employee but reasonable for an exec or senior salesperson with client contacts etc.
Geographical scope - where does it actually apply - if they say worldwide then that needs some serious justification. A classic case/example is hairdressers - they may have a non-compete that's deemed reasonable to prevent them from quitting and setting up shop next door or in the same village for x months (inevitably taking their regular customers with them)... but it's not so reasonable to say they can't work anywhere in the county.
Who is counted as a competitor? That shouldn't be too broad either. Also working at a large competitor but for a different part of the business to the division that competes with the former employer shouldn't necessarily be prevented.
Also, the role OP has is important, what is the contract seeking to protect? If he's a receptionist or IT support or a maintenance/facilities guy then who cares - he's just some generic job person unconnected with the core business activities - if however he's a salesperson or exec or key R&D person then there might be things they legitimately want to protect.
The broad principle is that the courts need to balance being able to protect legitimate business interests vs not restricting people's rights to practice their trade.
The other thing to watch out for is working for clients - that can be more easily restricted than working for competitors because there will often be no poaching agreements signed between the employer & clients that employees are unaware of - much easier to leverage those against a client than to fight the ex-employee - can lead to job offers being rescinded (if someone at the client screws up and doesn't realise that poaching people is iffy) or it can mean the client needs to do a deal and buy out the person they want to hire.
