Employment Contract

[The_Monkey]

I have signed an employment contract with my current company. The terms of employment are fairly standard except for one clause stating that I am not allowed to work for any competitors or principles of the company.

I have asked around and understand that under Singapore law, non-compete clauses in employment contract is allowed if it is reasonable. For my case,
1. I am not allowed to seek employment with competitors or principles for 6 months. This would mean I am not allowed to seek employment anywhere in Singapore.
2. I am just a low level service engineer. There is no trade secrets to protect. So it is unreasonable to restrict me from getting employed elsewhere.
3. The penalty for breaching the clause is S$100k, which is again unreasonable and unjustifiable since the employer sustain no loss whatsoever.
4. Sometimes high level positions such as the CEO of a company get paid / compensated if retrenched / fired as they would be barred from working for competitors for long period of time up to years.
5. I learned that the employer included the clause simply to prevent its own employee from jumping over to join it competitors. There is absolutely no concern over trade secrets.

My question is, is the clause not enforceable due to unreasonableness? I have read this which basically says that the clause is unreasonable and can be ignored.
Employment Law - Covenants in Restraint of Trade: A Broad Overview

Anyone has any idea?

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by The_Monkey

I have signed an employment contract with my current company. The terms of employment are fairly standard except for one clause stating that I am not allowed to work for any competitors or principles of the company.

I have asked around and understand that under Singapore law, non-compete clauses in employment contract is allowed if it is reasonable. For my case,
1. I am not allowed to seek employment with competitors or principles for 6 months. This would mean I am not allowed to seek employment anywhere in Singapore.
2. I am just a low level service engineer. There is no trade secrets to protect. So it is unreasonable to restrict me from getting employed elsewhere.
3. The penalty for breaching the clause is S$100k, which is again unreasonable and unjustifiable since the employer sustain no loss whatsoever.
4. Sometimes high level positions such as the CEO of a company get paid / compensated if retrenched / fired as they would be barred from working for competitors for long period of time up to years.
5. I learned that the employer included the clause simply to prevent its own employee from jumping over to join it competitors. There is absolutely no concern over trade secrets.

My question is, is the clause not enforceable due to unreasonableness? I have read this which basically says that the clause is unreasonable and can be ignored.
Employment Law - Covenants in Restraint of Trade: A Broad Overview

Anyone has any idea?

Hi Monkey, this clause is a desperate measure on the part of your employer and is hard to enforce. You can work for any other company under another job title, or as a consultant (technically not an employee) or became a vendor to your new employer by incorporate a business entity yourself. In any case 6 months is quite short so it is not going to hurt your future very much.

In practice, most companies will not find it worthwhile to enforce it unless you are in senior mgt positions.

Just ignore it. If they want the 100k, they have to lodge a civil lawsuit against you, and as you rightfully said, the clause is utterly unfair and so you have 99% of winning the lawsuit, and it will look very bad on the company.

If I were you, and if I jump ship to a competitor, I'll ask this company to better sue me, so I can countersue for damages.

Usually for non-compete clause, the company will include in the clause that the company shall pay the employee a % of his last drawn pay (usually 1/3 or 1/2 ) during the non-compete period should they wish to impose the non-compete clause on the employee. This is to safeguard the company too in order to make the clause more fair and therefore enforceable.

So even if you sign on the non-compete clause, it just give the company the right to impose it on you, doesn't mean that it will impose it on you. And if the company does decide to impose it on you, then they must pay you accordingly to the clause.

If the non-compete clause does not mention anything about paying you during the non-compete period should they impose it on you, then this non-compete clause is very much one-sided and therefore very much unenforceable when brought to court.

I have this clause included in my employment contract as there is no compensation mention would this be considered one sided and not enforceable in Singapore?

[ThomasScheer]

I too have this clause mentioned in my contract.

ask you company go F spider

Originally Posted by The_Monkey

I have signed an employment contract with my current company. The terms of employment are fairly standard except for one clause stating that I am not allowed to work for any competitors or principles of the company.

I have asked around and understand that under Singapore law, non-compete clauses in employment contract is allowed if it is reasonable. For my case,
1. I am not allowed to seek employment with competitors or principles for 6 months. This would mean I am not allowed to seek employment anywhere in Singapore.
2. I am just a low level service engineer. There is no trade secrets to protect. So it is unreasonable to restrict me from getting employed elsewhere.
3. The penalty for breaching the clause is S$100k, which is again unreasonable and unjustifiable since the employer sustain no loss whatsoever.
4. Sometimes high level positions such as the CEO of a company get paid / compensated if retrenched / fired as they would be barred from working for competitors for long period of time up to years.
5. I learned that the employer included the clause simply to prevent its own employee from jumping over to join it competitors. There is absolutely no concern over trade secrets.

My question is, is the clause not enforceable due to unreasonableness? I have read this which basically says that the clause is unreasonable and can be ignored.
[url=://.lawgazette.com.sg/2001-1/Jan01-focus.htm]Employment Law - Covenants in Restraint of Trade: A Broad Overview[/

Anyone has any idea?

it's pretty standard in the industry actually.
Not allowed to seek employment with competitions DOES NOT mean you cannot work. It just means you cannot work in a related industry.
Even low level staff could gain access to trade secrets somehow, even when they don't know it.
Even CEOs get fired get severance packages in millions good enough to not work for years.

For low level like you, don't think so much lah.

[UWEEI]

Hi All,

Any idea what's the package that Aalst Chocolate Singapore offer's?
- Any AWS given?
- Overtime rate?
- Variable bonus rate?
- Allowance?
- does it have indivisual namecard given?