Celkem hlasů: 0
Employers should take note of the current political debate and the climate for implementing non-competition measures in the labour market. We recommend that careful consideration be given to the need to include them in all current or expected employment contracts, in order to mitigate the possibility that such provisions may be declared unenforceable or attract civil or criminal enforcement measures. The following practical advice can help reduce the risks associated with cartels. For a worker who is required to protect the employer`s confidentiality and trade secrets, the employer and the worker may agree to the inclusion of non-compete clauses in the employment contract or a separate confidentiality agreement. In the event of termination or expiry of the employment contract, the employer pays monthly compensation to the worker during the agreed non-competition period. If the worker does not object to non-competition, he pays damages to the employer as agreed. Which core businesses are considered legitimate business reasons that justify the application of a non-compete agreement by employers? 3. Discourage the use of excessively restrictive or non-restrictive non-competition clauses, including: given the nature of your industry, your business model and trade secrets, the value of its customers or other confidential/owner information that you wish to protect, does your business really need a non-compete clause? Or would a non-invitation or confidentiality clause sufficiently protect the interests of your business? Until recently, U.S. antitrust authorities have focused on non-competition measures and other employer practices that have affected workers` mobility and wages. Not anymore.
In recent years, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and various attorneys general have sought to pay close attention to competition in the labour markets. Three years ago, the DOJ announced a significant change in enforcement policy and warned companies and executives that it would review „bare“ non-defence and wage agreements between competing employers in the future and that it would even pursue lawsuits.  Many attorneys general have become increasingly aggressive in this area, advocated for stronger federal action, and taken state action against certain uses of non-competition clauses and non-poach agreements. Federal legislation has been proposed for the application of non-competition clauses – and it enjoys bipartisan support. The Law Society has become increasingly active in challenging the application of the non-competition clause and initiating collective action against employers who enter into so-called non-poach agreements. And it wasn`t until this month that the FTC held a workshop to study an FTC rule that would significantly limit or even eliminate the use of non-compete clauses in the workplace in employment contracts or stand-alone competition restriction agreements. On October 17, 2019, Senators Murphy and Young introduced the 2019 bill, which is slightly more moderate than the failed 2018 legislation. The new bill proposes to generally prohibit any non-competition clause, with the exception of those related to the sale of a business or the dissolution or separation of a partnership (as long as the surviving company continues to engage in a similar activity after the sale or dissolution).