Workers negotiating a non-compete contract with their employer should only agree on conditions that are actually necessary to protect the employer`s interests. There are several factors that can affect the adequacy of a non-competition clause. For each element, the Tribunal considers the non-competition clause on the basis of its adequacy: concluding that the agreement is not related to a legitimate commercial interest is the most effective way to opt out of a non-competition contract. The purpose of a non-compete clause is to protect trade secrets. If you can prove that your old role does not require access to trade secrets, you should be able to accept a job with any company you want. The court can only set aside parts of the clause if the other words of the same clause are still grammatically correct and the original meaning of the clause is not affected. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot, with a “blue pencil,” establish an inappropriate non-competition clause if nothing can be removed to make the clause appropriate. The non-competition clause must protect 1) a legitimate property interest; and 2) be appropriate to the parties involved and the public. The “reasonable” nature of the scope of a non-competition clause depends on several factors: 1) the size of the workers (rank and seniority) with restraint; 2. the area of activity is reserved; 3.
the length of the deduction; 4. Geographically restricted area. Your non-competition clause should limit only the essential activities in which your former employee participated, and should not be unreasonably broad. In the same example of the cement dealer, it would be reasonable to prohibit the worker from marketing cement products. Preventing it from trading with other raw materials, such as coal or wood, could be considered unreasonably restrictive. Most non-competitions cover three basic provisions: location limitation, time limit and what is considered competition. Let`s use a cement dealer and his employer as an example. The distributor develops strong links with cement customers who are maintained and maintained on behalf of the company.
When the employee goes to another cement sales company and hijacks businesses, the company can prove that it has valid property rights that are worth protecting. However, a non-compete clause preventing the employee from using the skills he or she took at work would not apply.