Salary.sg Forums - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text Automatically retrieve titles from external links

24-10-2017 12:02 PM

Unregistered

Employment contract

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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?

After working several years as a full time employee, is it possible for the employer to ask you to sign a new employment contract with amendments.

23-01-2016 06:45 PM

UWEEI

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

if ur offered u will know, if ur not then why bother to find out.

Because i have 3 offer, wanna compare as they keep so confidential so i unable to get the result, hopefully you guys can help.... Thanks

23-01-2016 06:27 PM

Unregistered

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

if ur offered u will know, if ur not then why bother to find out.

23-01-2016 03:07 PM

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?

23-01-2016 11:23 AM

Unregistered

Quote:

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.

23-01-2016 12:07 AM

Unregistered

ask you company go F spider

22-01-2016 02:00 PM

ThomasScheer

I too have this clause mentioned in my contract.

26-08-2015 01:00 AM

Unregistered

Non competitive clause for 6 months without compensation

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?

18-05-2012 02:00 PM

Unregistered

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.

18-05-2012 01:27 PM

Unregistered

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.

This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Forum Rules