But one client may well have said it when we discussed the steps they should take to prevent a competitor from hiring a particularly fraudulent ex-employee who would likely be competing in the same territory they`ve always had: “Let these bozos hire him. They deserve it and everything he will end up doing to them. They earn each other. Once the company has received all the relevant documents, the company must evaluate the hiring of each potential employee. This requires reviewing each document that employees have signed and delineating the restrictive agreements contained in each agreement. The case is clearly designed as a warning to employers who use the litigation to intimidate competitors who want to hire their employees. But it also highlights the huge benefits you can get by making sure your recruitment efforts are fair and legal. These benefits disappear the second a recruiter or recruit crosses the line of illegal conduct, para. B example by deleting documents or copying electronic files belonging to the previous employer. If your company hires employees from competitors from time to time, as most companies do, it`s worth spending time and effort implementing recruitment and admission practices to ensure that new employees don`t bring their former employer`s documents and materials to their new job. 3. If trade secrets or confidential information are used by the former employee to trace employees or determine their characteristics, which in turn may create grounds for action if breached, the more confidential information about employees and their required skills and contacts is kept, the more it can be argued that the request was inappropriate.
Anything a competitor might have discovered by looking at your public directory or website isn`t considered a trade secret, but if you keep really confidential information and opinions about an employee that is somehow used by the referring ex-employee, you have a reason to act. Let`s go back to the more factors: There were no more factors in the hypothetical factors mentioned above. Let`s mix things up: ABC and Z Corp were in talks about a possible merger. As part of these conversations, ABC had the opportunity to break into Z Corp and speak with a number of Z Corp employees. In the midst of merger negotiations, ABC decides it has no interest in a merger, but wants to continue discussions so that it can continue to gather information about Z Corp. Meanwhile, ABC has learned who the main players in Z Corp are. Negotiations hit a wall, ABC broke off merger negotiations and then hired 15 of Z Corp`s top employees. Although there was a non-disclosure agreement, ABC insists that it did not use any of Z Corp`s confidential information. Instead, ABC claims to have spoken to Z Corp employees and found out who the main players were. ABC states that none of this information was confidential.
Is this unfair competition? Potentially. Continuing merger negotiations in bad faith to gain better access to Z Corp employees could be considered unfair. The problem is obvious: unfair competition is a grey area. Employers have traditionally distinguished the provisions on employee solicitation prohibitions based on a 1985 California Court of Appeals case called Loral v. Moyes. 174 Cal. App.3d 268 (1985). There, the court found that a non-solicitation provision did not violate section 16600 and was enforceable. The court found that such a ban was a reasonable and limited restriction that had little impact on employee mobility and helped foster a stable workforce by preventing raids and poaching of employees. However, two recent california cases have cast doubt on Loral`s continued viability, concluding that such non-solicitation provisions are unenforceable for employees. Ellen M. Bandel is a partner in the employment practice and advises unionized and non-unionized employers on all aspects of labour law.
In particular, Ellen advises employers on a range of workplace issues, including recruitment; the development of manuals and employment policies; employee performance and discipline; the management of paid and unpaid leisure policies and leave; respect for wages and hourly and disabled housing; the appropriate handling of employee complaints; workplace audits and investigations; staff reduction; and risk mitigation. For years, the Justice Department has “spoken,” but the FCC indictment is a sign that the Justice Department is “walking the path.” In 2016, the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued joint guidelines warning companies and human resources professionals against applying federal antitrust laws to hiring practices and non-poaching agreements. The agencies warned that the DOJ intended to “pursue agreements on bare fixation or non-poaching.” The Justice Department reaffirmed its intention to prosecute No-Poach and launched in late 2020 the first lawsuit against a recruitment company for entering into wage deals with its competitors. The former owner of the company faces up to 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine, as well as possible FTC penalties and fines. A violation of the Sherman Act (antitrust law) imposes a fine of up to $100 million on companies. In California, without an agreement to acquire ownership shares, an employee cannot be excluded from competition after termination of employment. See our article The Employment Noncompete Clause in California for a full discussion on this topic on our Retention Article page. No one should be surprised if the trend continues against employers` efforts to end poaching and ban poaching. In fact, President Biden ran on a platform that “contains non-compete clauses and non-poaching agreements that impede workers` ability to achieve higher wages, better benefits, and better working conditions by changing employers.” Employers should carefully review agreements with their employees, as well as any agreements they may have with other employers in their field regarding the employment of their competitors` employees. Employers may wish to reconsider the provisions of these agreements to such an extent that they could be considered anti-competitive. Because of these two cases, California law is evolving with respect to the continued viability of non-solicitation provisions for employees. During this period of uncertainty, employers should consult with a lawyer about whether to maintain such provisions in their California working papers.
1. Obviously, the easiest way to stop the efforts is to get your employees to create a work environment, including a salary and benefits that are attractive enough for the employee to make such efforts in vain. In this context, it is important to note that a major reason for the departure of employees is to join a company in which they have a stake and can cease to be “simple” employees. .
English
Português