[geefree]

Hi .
I would like to know how you guys who employ protect yourselves , from ex employees going back to your customers and simply taking them away, after all they are not really interested in you, as a company .. are they?....

they like the nice friendly window cleaner who did such a good job .

Do you have a clause in the employment contract that they cannot do this for a certain given time? or even.. never be able to do it.


just your thoughts please.

thanks.

Gary.

Cas-man

Gazzasp8.   

[geefree]

 

[alanwilson]

the worrying thing is we have nothing like this in place!

however we do pay our staff reasonably well, they get lifted and laid  - treated like royalty!

we feel its best this way as they aren't going to risk going it alone for the sake of a few extra quid, with saying that they are both really laid back guys and as long as they get their money in each week they are happy. 

[Spursboy1972]

Gazza this could always be a potential problem.

I used to work for a National company that there really was only one major competitor.

When getting staff to sign for staff handbooks and their contracts of employment they used to complain about a clause that stated that they could not work fo0r a competitor within 3 years of leaving.

When I approached our MD about this he actually said that it would not stand up in a court of law and the actual cost of taking someone to court over it would not be worthwhile.

It is basically restraint of trade.

However i would still insert a similar clause as it may just do trhe trick of frightening a little.

Either that or do everything you can to ensure you keep your staff!

[Paul Coleman]

Gazza this could always be a potential problem.

I used to work for a National company that there really was only one major competitor.

When getting staff to sign for staff handbooks and their contracts of employment they used to complain about a clause that stated that they could not work fo0r a competitor within 3 years of leaving.

When I approached our MD about this he actually said that it would not stand up in a court of law and the actual cost of taking someone to court over it would not be worthwhile.

It is basically restraint of trade.

However i would still insert a similar clause as it may just do trhe trick of frightening a little.

Either that or do everything you can to ensure you keep your staff!

I used to do a PAYE cleaning job part-time.  One of the clauses was that  couldn't work directly for their customer up to one year after leaving.  That might hold up.  A lot more realistic IMO.  A clause banning someone from working within the trade for anyone else is clearly unenforceable.  The customer can choose their service provider anyway.

[Londoner]

If you sign up for any of the franchises like Prontaprint they make you sign a contract that says you won't start a similar business outside the franchise etc.

One of my old customers at Kodak had ended his franchise with Prontaprint and opened a One Hour Photo Shop.

The franchise company were on him like a shot when they found out saying he still had to pay them a percentage of his takings because he was using skills and techniques that they had tought him.

[Kentish Poleman]

You cannot enforce any fanciful methods of stopping a former employee. Why? Because one they have left your employment and therefore your unique operating methods, they cease to be a part of that enterprise.

So, just because your man was tought the trade under your instruction, unless he literally shows EVERYTHING that YOUR company does, he is operating as a free agent, and therefore is untouchable in law.

So, if you want to proctect your existing customer base, you must look closely at how you operate; for instance, how you speak to your customers, your appearance, the condition of your vehicles, and most importantly, the actual job that you are doing for that customer! I have seen businesses that have had huge sums of cash injected into them, with liveried staff, smart premises, etc but let down buy the actual job itself. that, my friend, is where you need to concentrate, not on what a former staff member does or does not do. Get YOUR business right, and you have nothing to worry about.

[bluez]

Very good advice KP.
Gazza don't worry about it m8 just look after your business, former staff may start up and you deal with it the same as you do any other challenge. It has happened to me and to be honest I would be much more concerned with other types of competition because if these guys had the get up and go to do it why were they working for you in the first place.

[windowwashers]

Gazza this could always be a potential problem.

I used to work for a National company that there really was only one major competitor.

When getting staff to sign for staff handbooks and their contracts of employment they used to complain about a clause that stated that they could not work fo0r a competitor within 3 years of leaving.

When I approached our MD about this he actually said that it would not stand up in a court of law and the actual cost of taking someone to court over it would not be worthwhile.

It is basically restraint of trade.

However i would still insert a similar clause as it may just do trhe trick of frightening a little.

Either that or do everything you can to ensure you keep your staff!

I used to do a PAYE cleaning job part-time.  One of the clauses was that  couldn't work directly for their customer up to one year after leaving.  That might hold up.  A lot more realistic IMO.  A clause banning someone from working within the trade for anyone else is clearly unenforceable.  The customer can choose their service provider anyway.

you are correct on the unenforceable bit, as this is seen to affect there living, but you can protect yourself from then contacting any of your customers for a set time and this will start up. I had a contact with a webdesign compnay banning me from website design if I left I had to go to a solicitor as I left and wanted to do the same job in the same area, I just could not contact the customers for 12 months not that I needed or wanted to as they already had a site anyway  :


I think it is called a restrictive covenant
IAN

[scud]

  A balaclava and a dark alleyway if it happened to me.

[Bonkors]

If you sign up for any of the franchises like Prontaprint they make you sign a contract that says you won't start a similar business outside the franchise etc.

One of my old customers at Kodak had ended his franchise with Prontaprint and opened a One Hour Photo Shop.

The franchise company were on him like a shot when they found out saying he still had to pay them a percentage of his takings because he was using skills and techniques that they had tought him.

were Prontaprint successful in this action?

[Londoner]

If you sign up for any of the franchises like Prontaprint they make you sign a contract that says you won't start a similar business outside the franchise etc.

One of my old customers at Kodak had ended his franchise with Prontaprint and opened a One Hour Photo Shop.

The franchise company were on him like a shot when they found out saying he still had to pay them a percentage of his takings because he was using skills and techniques that they had tought him.

were Prontaprint successful in this action?

I don't know the final outcome but they sure frightned him. I'm not sure it was Prontaprint but it was one of those quick print franchises. He thought by opening a photo shop he could sidestep his agreement with them. He was a bit dodgy like that.

[AuRavelling79]

In another time - early 90's I was a part owner in an office eqipment firm. We had a light fingered co-partner that we threatened with the police or he could walk away quietly if certain conditions were fulfilled.

One condition was that he could not "go after our customers" and we wanted two years. Our solicitor told us that six months was about the enforceable limit in court and that as he was a co-partner we might get nine months and so that to be reasonable and not restrict his livelihood he recommended putting a nine month clause in.

Another relative who is an employed hairdresser has a contract saying that if she leaves she cannot work within half a mile of the salon she works in for 6 months and that she must not try to take away any customers for the same length of time.

It seems that 6 months is about it for an employee.