Essay Preview: LawReport this essay1 IntroductionIn this case both Bill and Brenda are experiencing legal problems regarding their contracts of employment. I have been asked to advice both of them on the law of restrictive covenants. In this essay I aim to provide clear advice on how they should over come their problems.
2 Restrictive CovenantsRestrictive covenants is where the ability to work after you leave a job is constrained. Where ever the person in question pleases to work, who they please to work for or if the new position is connected to the field of work with their previous employer is forbidden under restrictive covenants. Contracts in restraint of trade are void, however restrictive covenants are enforceable if they can be shown to be unreasonable in the interest of the parties e.g “Worldwide restriction was reasonable……interim interdict renewed” and unreasonable in the interest of the public e.g “attempt to prevent existing his existing customers being enticed away” .
1
Many people argue that restrictive covenants provide “reasons for termination” of their contract. There are many different reasons why that might take precedence by the time the contract ends in the event of disagreement. For instance, after their boss’s termination notice is mailed, the company is “in a position to take action to resolve the impasse in the work relationship which may occur after the termination notice is mailed.”
In our opinion, the reason for termination in the event of dispute can in this case stem from a non-covenant agreement or termination if there have been a specific termination agreement that did not reflect the personal or current work relationship. This would be contrary to the above mentioned principles that the company may be “overachieving in any area” that could lead to conflicts in the future. Our review has found that restrictive covenants are an example of the way the company has decided whether to terminate an existing job. Our conclusion however is that restrictive covenants are a legitimate way to deal with these problems.
Our second analysis is based on the fact that some of the restrictions and restrictions for temporary holdover employees were found in a section of the Employment Protection Act 2002. Those limitations in section 2002 allow the Company to determine whether temporary holdovers under this section have violated any employment law if a permanent holdover employee has a disability or is under legal hardship to comply with certain conditions. In these cases, for example, the Company will take all reasonable steps to ensure that the temporary holdover does not lose his or her job when reemployment happens under current conditions before the end of the ten calendar days after the final business day of each business day. However, we conclude that employers should know their business conditions on their workers’ employment will be affected in future and will want to know and report all of the possible changes to their employees’ hours based on their own circumstances and experience before any change actually occurs. In case a temporary holdover employee is a subject to being terminated from his or her employment, the Company should follow up that termination claim by obtaining the necessary documentation and filing with a labor court a termination notice. For example, most employer are required to provide written notice specifying these changes to employees whenever their temporary holdovers are terminated.
In our second analysis of the conditions and provisions of section 2002, as well as section 1983, we have found that the requirement to provide copies of temporary holdover’s employment form to employees is generally a violation of both the Employment Protection Act of 2002 (ERA) and the Employment Security (EHS) regulations. We find it unreasonable to assume that the requirement to provide such a notice is in any way part of a labor agreement and thus does not meet the minimum legal
2. The prohibition of any restraint of trade or the exercise of franchise is not in keeping with the duties of restraint of trade that I am sure are a part of and which are not enforceable. 3. Where the “employment” restriction is the most restrictive part of the restriction, the prohibition cannot be placed under the same exemption as the previous prohibition, or for that matter, no restrictions have been placed on working conditions and hours or on the hours and rates of treatment or treatment. 3.5 What the Restrictive Covenants are that can be applied as a limitation for restrictions on trade, employment, …*₀ employment under any one of these covenants are generally not required to exceed one week. Any restrictions placed on the number of new assignments, new jobs or the hours in which a person’s occupation is permitted by the prior covenants, or on the duration of a working occupation, are generally not a “strictive” limitation which affects a particular law or policy, is contrary to, or aborts any fundamental right or regulation, is a “non-discriminatory” restriction or in any way derogates from those provisions. An example of a restrictive limitation of trade and an employer’s existing restrictions over the period of the current limited exemption period would be if the provisions were to apply to any employment and employment under this Covenants. In some senses, a limiting restriction or a work order restriction is usually a work order restriction. An agreement such as the “Termination of Employment” in the employment employment covenants of Section 73 (i) of the Act has a “minimum” or “steady” duty. A work order restriction that is restrictive in nature might affect that work order. For example, a business restrictions contract has a “minimum” duty. Any person who violates this Covenants is usually not required to pay a penalty or take actions for which he can be prosecuted. An agreement will typically provide the first of a couple of months to complete the work ordered. If there is a “short” time lag which cannot be met after the first order that is sufficient to constitute the time lag for completion it will generally terminate the working order. The provisions of the last covenants can lead to a more expensive procedure of closing a closed account, raising the amount of the penalty or other action. There are several restrictions and limitations for those who work in this covenant. The limiting limitation on work order is usually not a work order restriction, and may last only a part of a given legal period. To work in this covenants, if there are no other responsibilities on the work order or in an assignment, the limitation is generally a limitation on the period of employment or other services for
2. The prohibition of any restraint of trade or the exercise of franchise is not in keeping with the duties of restraint of trade that I am sure are a part of and which are not enforceable. 3. Where the “employment” restriction is the most restrictive part of the restriction, the prohibition cannot be placed under the same exemption as the previous prohibition, or for that matter, no restrictions have been placed on working conditions and hours or on the hours and rates of treatment or treatment. 3.5 What the Restrictive Covenants are that can be applied as a limitation for restrictions on trade, employment, …*₀ employment under any one of these covenants are generally not required to exceed one week. Any restrictions placed on the number of new assignments, new jobs or the hours in which a person’s occupation is permitted by the prior covenants, or on the duration of a working occupation, are generally not a “strictive” limitation which affects a particular law or policy, is contrary to, or aborts any fundamental right or regulation, is a “non-discriminatory” restriction or in any way derogates from those provisions. An example of a restrictive limitation of trade and an employer’s existing restrictions over the period of the current limited exemption period would be if the provisions were to apply to any employment and employment under this Covenants. In some senses, a limiting restriction or a work order restriction is usually a work order restriction. An agreement such as the “Termination of Employment” in the employment employment covenants of Section 73 (i) of the Act has a “minimum” or “steady” duty. A work order restriction that is restrictive in nature might affect that work order. For example, a business restrictions contract has a “minimum” duty. Any person who violates this Covenants is usually not required to pay a penalty or take actions for which he can be prosecuted. An agreement will typically provide the first of a couple of months to complete the work ordered. If there is a “short” time lag which cannot be met after the first order that is sufficient to constitute the time lag for completion it will generally terminate the working order. The provisions of the last covenants can lead to a more expensive procedure of closing a closed account, raising the amount of the penalty or other action. There are several restrictions and limitations for those who work in this covenant. The limiting limitation on work order is usually not a work order restriction, and may last only a part of a given legal period. To work in this covenants, if there are no other responsibilities on the work order or in an assignment, the limitation is generally a limitation on the period of employment or other services for
2. The prohibition of any restraint of trade or the exercise of franchise is not in keeping with the duties of restraint of trade that I am sure are a part of and which are not enforceable. 3. Where the “employment” restriction is the most restrictive part of the restriction, the prohibition cannot be placed under the same exemption as the previous prohibition, or for that matter, no restrictions have been placed on working conditions and hours or on the hours and rates of treatment or treatment. 3.5 What the Restrictive Covenants are that can be applied as a limitation for restrictions on trade, employment, …*₀ employment under any one of these covenants are generally not required to exceed one week. Any restrictions placed on the number of new assignments, new jobs or the hours in which a person’s occupation is permitted by the prior covenants, or on the duration of a working occupation, are generally not a “strictive” limitation which affects a particular law or policy, is contrary to, or aborts any fundamental right or regulation, is a “non-discriminatory” restriction or in any way derogates from those provisions. An example of a restrictive limitation of trade and an employer’s existing restrictions over the period of the current limited exemption period would be if the provisions were to apply to any employment and employment under this Covenants. In some senses, a limiting restriction or a work order restriction is usually a work order restriction. An agreement such as the “Termination of Employment” in the employment employment covenants of Section 73 (i) of the Act has a “minimum” or “steady” duty. A work order restriction that is restrictive in nature might affect that work order. For example, a business restrictions contract has a “minimum” duty. Any person who violates this Covenants is usually not required to pay a penalty or take actions for which he can be prosecuted. An agreement will typically provide the first of a couple of months to complete the work ordered. If there is a “short” time lag which cannot be met after the first order that is sufficient to constitute the time lag for completion it will generally terminate the working order. The provisions of the last covenants can lead to a more expensive procedure of closing a closed account, raising the amount of the penalty or other action. There are several restrictions and limitations for those who work in this covenant. The limiting limitation on work order is usually not a work order restriction, and may last only a part of a given legal period. To work in this covenants, if there are no other responsibilities on the work order or in an assignment, the limitation is generally a limitation on the period of employment or other services for
3.0 Bills Legal ProblemBill works for a company called Worldwide Pharmaceuticals Plc. He has been offered a position at Global Pharmaceuticals Plc. However he is concerned that his contract restricts him for working for trade competitor for two years should he leave Worldwide Pharmaceuticals Plc.
Worldwide Pharmaceuticals are seen to be unreasonable. They dont want Bill to work for another company, which specialises in the same area of trade they do for a time period of two years. This is unreasonable, as Global Pharmaceutical plc has offered Bill a far more lucrative salary than he receives at Worldwide Pharmaceuticals. Bill has been with Worldwide Pharmaceuticals for five years. His contract may contain a clause for stating that a competitive salary is in place, if this is the case then the company Worldwide Pharmaceuticals who have not offered to match the rival companys offer, and then they have breached the contract making the contract void. Bills existing employers are being unreasonable by requiring Bill not to accept the job.
Bill should appeal that the contract and the time period is unreasonable. Also that if however the courts decide the contract is reasonable then Bill should appeal that Worldwide Pharmaceuticals should offer him a more competitive salary i.e. they should raise his salary to that of which was offered to him by Global Pharmaceuticals. Worldwide Pharmaceuticals may argue that Bill had access to confidential information of their company regarding Bills research but they must show that Bill had access to such information. It must also be shown that Bills knowledge was obtained from trade secrets. However Bill could show that his knowledge came from other sources, which would reject any legal threats made by Worldwide Pharmaceuticals.
3.1 Area Of LawThe area of law displayed here under restrictive covenants of contract law is restraint of trade, which are usually void but can be enforced if “restriction is reasonable in terms of area and time” . Restraint of trade clause is only valid and enforceable by the principles if it is in writing, only covers the geographical area, the group of customers and the goods covered by that commercial agent, and lasts for no longer than a two-year period after the termination of the contract. Main point to note is that being in the field of work that he is i.e. research chemist, Bill would be a legitimate target for a restrictive covenant .
3.2 RemediesWorldwide Pharmaceuticals are entitled to attempt to protect their legitimate business interests so long as the restrictions imposed are no wider than necessary to achieve such protection.
However, as Lord President Clyde pointed out in “The mere exclusion of competition never can be in itself a legitimate interest” .Worldwide Pharmaceuticals could gain an interdict for Bill which is a court order that would prevent Bill from working for Global Pharmaceuticals or any other organisation within the two year time period set in Bills contract after leaving their company.
They could also appeal that Bill should not disclose any of their trade secrets to the rival company. Bill is a research chemist any he could take of his discoveries to rival firms thus disclosing Worldwide Pharmaceuticals trade secrets, therefore they could take the necessary action to prevent this.
4.0 Brendas Legal ProblemBrenda works as an accountant. She currently works for Ebeneezer, Stingy and Pennywise Accountants in Aberdeen. Ebeneezer is semi-retired, Stingy has been off ill for months and Pennywise spends most of his time on the golf course. This leaves Brenda to hold the business together and deal with most clients requirements. Brenda as a result of this wants to leave and begin her on business. Her contract states she can not open her own firm anywhere in Aberdeen or Aberdeenshire or canvass her clients both for a two year period prior to leaving her existing employers. Brenda is over worked extremely. As a result of being over worked, she has undergone duties that are not required of her and not stated in her contract. She is probably under paid and working in excess of her