Any Lawyers here?

[UncleWolve]

Question:

Pertaining to non- compete agreements for employments in general, does singapore law has any contract act that stipulates that an agreement that restrains anyone from carrying on a lawful profession is void to that extent. The reasoning behind this is that agreements of restraint are unfair, as they impose an undue restriction on the personal freedom of a contracting party?

 

What are the loopholes if any of non-compete agreement that allows one to work for a competitor ?

[Smiley]

i think i read about this before, believe it is not legal fr such agreement.

 

wait fr our lawyers, we hv a few here.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Smiley

[Wanderer]

Not a lawyer but have checked with my fren some time back who has an in-house lawyer.

 

This clause is totally unfair in the sense that if that person is trained and worked in the same industry for a number of years, he or she will have to work in the same industry as this is their bread and butter. If there's a lapse of say 1 or 2 years, then he will be lost at the new technologies in his industry and wont be able to keep up.

 

Another thing is, the agreement is deemed as non-binding once that person leaves the company, ie he or she is NOT an employee anymore, so the agreement is deemed as useless.

 

But it's best to let a lawyer vet thru the said agreement first.

[Yuan]

If you are referring to agreements that apply to prevent employees from going over to a competitor or similar profession, it really depends on a few factors:

 

(i) level of profession you are level, ie director, CEO, COO etc.

(ii)nature of the job you are exposed to, ie professional engineer, architect etc.

(iii) period of restraint, ie xx months from the last effective date of your employment or xx years from the date of termination of employment.

 

For (i), if you are not a high level management, the risk that the company might suffer if you go over to a competitor or similar industrial company is minimal.

 

for (ii), if you are not a professional or not exposed to that much of the business or company information or proprietary materials such as business operations, sales figures, pricing information, then the risk that the company might suffer if you go over to a competitor or similar company might be minimal too.

 

For (iii), if the restraint period is 6 to 9 months after your last day, in my opinion, it could be construed as reasonable period of time. But a period of 2 years after you left your employment is totally ridiculous.

 

There has been a few case law on this in recent years regarding non-competing or restraing of employment agreements.

 

At the end of the day, it really depends on whether (i), (ii) and (iii) are reasonable and whether by using such non-competing clauses or restraint clauses, it really serve to protect the employor's business or trade.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Blacklancer224

[Yuan]

Not necessary that once an employee leaves a company, the agreement is useless.

 

Have to check the content of the agreement to see if there are any onerous clauses regarding whether he is allowed or not allowed to work in the similar industry for x number of months or years.

 

There are clauses to such effect in many of today's employment contracts or letters of employments.

[Apollo]

is not enforceable unless there r specific provision of compensation by company A to the ex-ployee to hold him in abeyance for a certain period of non competition.

 

then such compensation is considered fair and enforceable.

[Nkps]

all bullsh!t... go ahead work with your competitor....

[Freestylers09]

i knew some kana sue b4..but in the end all bo tai ji...got 1 kana hold comission also get back in the end

[UncleWolve]

Hmmm...

 

There is a clause saying that upon termination and up to 1 year ...that am not to work with a competing business...

 

There is a note that the contracted is entered under the jurisdiction of a US state ...

 

 

What are the possible loopholes?

I have heard that one may get employed with a competitor BUT the official position and responsibility can be ficticiously non competing..

 

eg. a Director at a PC company going to work as a Secretary at a PC company on paper (But in fact not)

[UncleWolve]

How come bo dai ji?

[UncleWolve]

Bro you a lawyer?

handling labor cases?

[Nkps]

if kana sue, proof to court that this is the only skill u have and this is the only skill that keep you survive.... how can one restrain one from surviving?

[Freestylers09]

i also dont know...i asked then let u know

[Nkps]

go ask MOM and they will tell you is bullsh!t... go ahead to get your pay increament

[Apollo]

well, they can proceed with an injunction / seek damage against u in the usa court but that would still require them to proceed with another legal action against you locally in order to enforce that.

 

in any case, if ur employment has been here, ala stationed here, paid CPF, paid income tax, etc, it wud b difficult to enforce against you. one can connive the most expert of all little fine prints but tat cannot circumvent facts u need to earn a living.

 

again.. if u hv been duly compensated not to work for competitors for x amount of duration, then u hv no case as this is final and binding in the eyes of the law.

[Blue2]

the 1 from tiger beer....

however...that person went to a slightly different market segment although in "same" industry..

[UncleWolve]

Who decides competition?

What if i am employed as a Service technician on paper but a CFO responsibility and CFO pay?

[Yuan]

Bro you a lawyer?

handling labor cases?

 

Yes. But me si in-house.