Restraint Of Trade Agreement South Africa
Its restriction agreement with Siemens prohibited it from doing so for a period of one year after the termination of his duties at Siemens. In the agreement, the applicant agreed not to disclose the trade secrets and confidential information provided by Siemens. In its decision, the Tribunal found that the employee was a senior executive and that he reported an intimate knowledge of Vodacom`s short- and long-term strategic plans and that this information would be beneficial to a direct competitor. The court confirmed that the deduction was appropriate and that the employee was required to spend six months on a gardening holiday and could not work for the competitor for an additional six months. Every citizen has the right to freely choose a profession, profession or profession. However, the restriction of trade agreements is perfectly legal and very applicable to South African workers. It`s to protect a company from the theft of its basic services. Moreover, these agreements are not valid and are not applicable only if they are deemed inappropriate. It is the responsibility of a staff member to prove that an agreement is inappropriate. However, for the agreement to be valid, signed copies must be available.
“It must: a) be able to apply to trade or industry, must be useful; Be non-public knowledge or assets (b) it can only be known to a limited number of people or a closed circle and c) have economic value for the person it wishes to protect.” If you are either an employee or an employer seeking advice on your restriction of trade rules, we can advise you to know what is the best way to approach your specific issue. A high-level case that has been established in favour of the employer before the Supreme Court of Appeal is Reddy v Siemens Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd 2007 2 SA 486 (SCA). Reddy, who worked at Siemens, resigned to take a position at Ericsson. After joining Siemens, he agreed not to be employed by a competitor a year after he ended and had agreed not to disclose Siemens` trade secrets and confidential information. In its decision against Digicor Fleet Management (Pty) Ltd, the High Court imposed no restrictions preventing a former employee from working for a competitor for two years. This is because the employee did not receive confidential information while working at Digicor – and she did not leave the company with more knowledge than she had when she started working for her. Other factors were that their new work did not specialize with the fleet management work that Digicore specialized in and it has no strong relationship with any of its clients. The employee contacted a Digicor client to request business for her new employer. This did not work out because it did not have a strong enough connection to influence the customer to make the change. The court found that the reluctance to ask for a former employer business may be enforceable when the worker “…
had the customer in the bag.” The employee`s mere knowledge of the client was not sufficient to threaten the employer`s protective interest. The court found that a restriction of the trade agreement is enforceable, unless it proves inappropriate – and the duty to show that it is inappropriate rests with the person accusing it. It was recalled that, in determining the adequacy of a restriction, two fundamental political considerations must be taken into account, considering, first, the public interest in the fact that the parties must fulfil their contractual obligations.