During my long experience in negotiating redundancy agreements, I have found “no-apply” clauses like yours in perhaps 50% of redundancy agreements. It serves a purpose for employers, and that is why it is in termination agreements, but its importance and purpose are not understood by many people. In fact, I also do not think most staff representatives understand. As stated in the previous question, the period considered appropriate is generally analysed in conjunction with the other factors. For example, if the non-compete clause is intended to protect valuable information, the reasonable duration is the period during which the information has value. The agreement identifies both parties and indicates the date of employment and termination. Where companies pay redundancy payments over a fixed period, the agreement must define the duration and structure of the payments. The best thing would be to have no non-competition clause at all. Otherwise, you should try to limit it as much as possible in geographical scope and duration. Narrowly limit it to the area where the employer really cares about you – not the whole industry or industry. For example, you might wonder that the limitation to the clothing retail trade is to work in a clothing store, unlike retail in general, which would cover a very wide range of possible jobs that really have nothing to do with it. The aim is to limit the agreement to what is necessary to protect the employer.