legal issue regarding part-timers

[LollyPoP]

okie.

i've a friend who's interested in joining my company as a prt timer.

but he's within the similiar field, job hoping i should say.

but the contract he had sign with previous company did stated tat if he were to join back similiar field, he would had to compensate 1k.

problem is he's below the age of 21.

 

any loop-hole?

advise needed.

 

many thanks.

[dragonforce]

a small loop hole is that minors are not allowed into certain contracts. read his previous contract again, you might get more clues.

 

psst. not a very nice topic.

[GuiNNeSS]

that contract should have a expiry month.

 

And whether he was a full timer or a part timer in the previous job may be important on this kind of issue.

[WildCard]

Am I right to say that the contract is actually stating that if he were to join a competitor's firm or organization (a.k.a another shop), he would have to compensate the current hiring company?

[who_noe]

Am I right to say that the contract is actually stating that if he were to join a competitor's firm or organization (a.k.a another shop), he would have to compensate the current hiring company?

 

think is compensate the previous company

[DeusExMachina]

Question is.... how would the ex-company know where he went, if he just tendered his resignation and then severed all ties?

 

Right?

[madman]

this kinda contract is useless if he wants to use against ur friend.

 

it is meant for threat.

 

if this is his livelihood, he quits from company, you mean he cant work at a similar field? that's totally rubbish, go to court also that arse company cant win i tell you.

 

did he happen to work in IT training field?

 

if you are a IT trainer working for one company, they have this clause where you cant work for other IT training company even if you resign, just ignore it. the company has no right to stop you from working in the same line or open your own company of similar line.

 

this type of contract is unreasonable and a total rubbish i say.

[Reese]

this contract only stands if the previous company is able to prove & convince the court that ur frend brought confidential data over to the new company

otherwise, can use it to wipe ur a$$

[dragonforce]

this kinda contract is useless if he wants to use against ur friend.

 

it is meant for threat.

 

if this is his livelihood, he quits from company, you mean he cant work at a similar field? that's totally rubbish, go to court also that arse company cant win i tell you.

 

did he happen to work in IT training field?

 

if you are a IT trainer working for one company, they have this clause where you cant work for other IT training company even if you resign, just ignore it. the company has no right to stop you from working in the same line or open your own company of similar line.

 

this type of contract is unreasonable and a total rubbish i say.

 

this contract only stands if the previous company is able to prove & convince the court that ur frend brought confidential data over to the new company

otherwise, can use it to wipe ur a$$

 

hi

i learnt something new today.. thank you very much.. i am not aware that its meant to be a threat and it holds no water in court.

[LollyPoP]

thank you guys for all the valueable info.

[xyoshiki]

this kinda contract is useless if he wants to use against ur friend.

 

it is meant for threat.

 

if this is his livelihood, he quits from company, you mean he cant work at a similar field? that's totally rubbish, go to court also that arse company cant win i tell you.

 

did he happen to work in IT training field?

 

if you are a IT trainer working for one company, they have this clause where you cant work for other IT training company even if you resign, just ignore it. the company has no right to stop you from working in the same line or open your own company of similar line.

 

this type of contract is unreasonable and a total rubbish i say.

 

 

Absolutely correct. It is unenforceable. Just check around there are plenty of case laws on this.

[contrarian]

Warning! There is some misinformation in this thread which will get people into trouble.

 

It is untrue that restrictive covenants in employment contracts have no effect in Singapore employment law.

 

Whether it is enforceable depends on the circumstances. It could be enforceable if the company has legitimate interests to protect, and the restrictions are proportionate to those interests it is protecting in both time and scope. Restrictions that are unreasonable are not enforceable.

 

In practical terms, the former employer has to go after the former employee if he wants to enforce the restriction. Most employers won't bother unless the former employee is high ranking or has possession of client information etc.

[xyoshiki]

Warning! There is some misinformation in this thread which will get people into trouble.

 

It is untrue that restrictive covenants in employment contracts have no effect in Singapore employment law.

 

Whether it is enforceable depends on the circumstances. It could be enforceable if the company has legitimate interests to protect, and the restrictions are proportionate to those interests it is protecting in both time and scope. Restrictions that are unreasonable are not enforceable.

 

In practical terms, the former employer has to go after the former employee if he wants to enforce the restriction. Most employers won't bother unless the former employee is high ranking or has possession of client information etc.

 

Lawyers typically like to say

1. on one hand.....

2. on the other hand......

 

There are plenty of case laws around on what the judges looked out for when making judgment on such issues. The key points have been mentioned by contrarian. Typically, for such a restriction to be enforceable, not only must the former employee as what you have mentioned is high ranking or has possession of client information etc, there must be a cut off date for the duration of the restriction.

 

On one hand, given that the TS's friend is so young......it is quite unlikely......(not trying to put down the youngsters. )

 

On the other hand he can of coz be someone of the facebook's founder league.

[xyoshiki]

In practical terms, if someone gives such a contract with such a clause to someone junior in rank and have no access to sensitive information.....he just anyhow hantang one.....

 

The drafter likely to be ignorant or their lawyers super kiasu anything everything just put in.

 

in our daily life there are plenty of things with limitation clauses where ppl anyhow hantang one. Blame the Americans.

[lawbah]

This kinda contract usually have a time frame to it no?

[madman]

my opinion is, companies which have this clause in (and you're not a high profile personnel with sensitive info etc), you're just a technician, graphic design etc, what rights does the company has to stop you from getting another similar job?

 

in this situation, it's safe to say there's nothing they can do.

 

Unless of course you stole their clients and bring them to your new company. That, got to be proven too with evidence though.

 

i saw 2 such contracts, there's no time frame to it. that means no expiry, you can never work in the same field if you quit ur job, tell me, how will this type of contracts hold in court if you didnt do anything illegal.

[contrarian]

i saw 2 such contracts, there's no time frame to it. that means no expiry, you can never work in the same field if you quit ur job, tell me, how will this type of contracts hold in court if you didnt do anything illegal.

 

In that case, in all likelihood those will be unenforceable. These are the types you'd want to hire as the new employer, because you know that those have no effect.

[madman]

In that case, in all likelihood those will be unenforceable. These are the types you'd want to hire as the new employer, because you know that those have no effect.

 

maybe you can advise the rest of us here, what's a reasonable timeframe for this type of contracts with such clauses? 3mths max?

[contrarian]

The most important question is what interests are there to protect? For instance, in your position, do you have client knowledge, special knowledge of methods of doing business etc.? Usually it is client-facing or management functions that are subject to restrictions, not back-office support or junior functions. If there is no legitimate interest to protect, even short restrictions are not reasonable.

 

The longer the time period of restriction, the more likely it is to be unreasonable. Thus, I would not be willing to risk having long restrictions (depending on his seniority, knowledge of customers etc.) - for example longer than a year for high-level senior employees - unless there are exceptional circumstances such as if the person is not only an employee, but also a selling shareholder or business owner (i.e. he used to own the business, which he sold to you and you bought over).

 

Besides, there are other ways to impose reasonable restrictions other than to say you cannot join a competitor. For example, you can join a competitor but you and your new firm cannot approach any clients of the firm for xx time.

[Reese]

so was i rite to say that unless the previous company was able to prove u hold confidential data that will infringe on their interest should u join a competitor, thus the restriction of you joining a competitor will stand

 

IMHO that should be the only reason such an agreement will stand

[Silent Hunter]

If part time job like working part time in KFC, then later join Mc as a part timer then it's ok lah, usually the bosses of previous company also know that it's just a student trying to earn pocket money, so they won't take action, even though they could have.

 

BUT!!!

If a U-graduate in Hotel management joins as a part timer to learn the recipes and names of the suppliers, and then quits after a month to open his own shop using the recipes and suppliers, the company will use the contract and sue the pants off him.

 

So it really depends on how the ex boss sees it, and whether he wants to take action.

[contrarian]

so was i rite to say that unless the previous company was able to prove u hold confidential data that will infringe on their interest should u join a competitor, thus the restriction of you joining a competitor will stand

 

IMHO that should be the only reason such an agreement will stand

 

That sounds like a wrong inference.

 

Confidential information is a totally separate subject, for which a past employer can hold you to forever with no time limit. i.e. it can be legal to say that you are not allowed to divulge or make use of any confidential information made known to you when you were working for your past employer.

[Reese]

ahhh... ok i get it

thank you!

[Aalex82]

the restriction clause must hav reasonable time frame and geographical range stated too. The main aim is to strive a balance between a trade's interest and one employee's livelihood..