Define Non-Poaching Agreement

According to Mr. Cappelli, these seemingly contradictory positions raise two questions: on the one hand, whether a franchisee could ask its franchisees to sign non-poacher agreements without turning them into part of the franchisee`s business. The second question is whether what is good for employers, such as in this case a no-poaching deal, is not good for workers, because such agreements make it harder for them to earn higher wages. “Here`s an example of using guidelines to do something that might be great for the employer, but bad for employees.” According to Starr: “If no-poaching agreements are good ways to protect investments in training, then we need to think a little more carefully about other ways to protect them without having these restrictions invisible to the employee.” He drew attention to the “training reimbursement contracts” that are often used, where employees have to pay a portion of the training fee when they leave, with a decreasing scale of payment obligations based on the duration of the position. “It`s a contract that would protect educational investments, but it wouldn`t necessarily prevent the employee from leaving, especially if, after a few years, all those payments have fallen to zero.” The next shoe he abandoned was the implementation of enforcement measures against franchises with naked non-poaching agreements. In January 2018, for example, the Washington Attorney General`s Office began investigating non-poaching and non-hiring agreements between franchise-based fast food companies. These investigations resulted in “Assurance of Discontinuance” agreements with more than 30 national fast food and restaurant chains to remove non-poaching clauses from their franchise agreements. Since then, the Washington Attorney General`s Office has indicated that other sectors, such as hotels, auto repair services, home health services and other franchise-based sectors, are under investigation for illegal cartel without poaching. In Canada, debauchery prohibition agreements came under a restrictive review in 2016, when the Alberta Court of Queen`s Bench examined the issue in Specialized Property Evaluation Control Services Ltd. V. Les Evaluations Marc Bourret Appraisals Inc. The Tribunal found that the wrongly dismissed employees were excused by the applicability of both the prohibitions on debauchery and the prohibitions on competition and found that both agreements are not applicable, unless they are appropriate and in the public interest.

[6] The main part of the agreement is a list of restricted types of demands, including restrictions against: Joe quits his job at XYZ Company. . . .

Comments are closed.