Comments on: Non-compete clauses face increasing scrutiny amid calls for reform

By: Nicole

Nicole — Mon, 24 Jun 2024 04:07:27 +0000

I think that it should be taken out for everyone other that upper management in big corporations.
The industry I was in previously had businesses that had these clauses in their contracts, and with the limited number of qualified people in the industry, made it very hard to fill casual positions. There were a few companies that refused to allow their workers to seek work outside of their company even if they didn’t have the work for them. This made finding staff very hard when it came to seasonal work. In this industry it is vital that businesses work together for the collective good.

By: Chantal

Chantal — Wed, 19 Jun 2024 02:34:18 +0000

In reply to Adrian Infanti.

I’m afraid I can’t agree with your comment. If a client is leaving a business to follow an employee, then there are fundamental issues with that business to start with. I understand the “don’t poach clients” aspect, but if the client willingly follows the employee at their own behest, then I don’t see how it’s fair of the business to try and stop that. The are losing that client regardless. I know I personally wouldn’t patronise a business that tried to tell me where I could spend my money.

By: Adrian Infanti

Adrian Infanti — Fri, 31 May 2024 00:13:08 +0000

What if Restraint Clauses have been used by a business to restrain lower employees from taking clients when they leave and move to another business (non-solicitation)? This would still seem like a fair justification of the use of non-compete clauses to all employees regardless of their seniority. Losing customers when an employee leaves can cause significant loss to an employer and I believe is still a valid use of this type of contract clause. The ability to understand the reasonableness and enforce this type of contract seems to be the greater issue.

By: Bree Yardley

Bree Yardley — Mon, 06 May 2024 00:49:14 +0000

Banning non-compete clauses outright defeats the purpose of why they were introduced in the first place – to protect the legitimate interests of a company. However, their introduction into less-than-senior role contracts where the employee has no access to confidential information and does not create close customer relationships is troublesome, and my advice to employers was always that they were likely to be unenforceable, based on the reasoning that everyone is entitled to earn a living.
I had never considered that employees would feel themselves bound by the clauses, or that they might affect the outcomes of a Fair Work decision. This is something I will be mentioning to my clients in future, and assisting them to make a fair judgement of whether the clause should or should not be included in the contract at all.

By: Kathlee

Kathlee — Sun, 05 May 2024 22:09:24 +0000

For many years as an HR professional the topic of restraint clauses invariably comes up. My position on this is to apply fairness and what is reasonable. I think Restraint Clauses have a part to play but you must consider the particular circumstances for the exiting individual and the business equally. I agree that for lower level employees that have little or no access to confidential information or influence over customers the restraints are not worth having. The onus is on the business to protect their IP and relationships over the duration of employment and beyond and not rely on one person or a few in a group to manage significant customers. Banning restraint clauses unilaterally I do not believe is required, as some common sense needs to be applied, and rely on the employee and employer relationship through employment and beyond.