http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/protect-workers-unfair-restrictive-clauses-20131116
The Manpower Ministry should consider this in its future review of the Employment Act.
Workers are at the mercy of employers when they sign the letters of appointment because if they do not oblige, the jobs go to other candidates.
Often, we see such clauses being exploited by employers, using terms such as "trade secret" or "confidential information" as justification, to stop their workers from working for rival companies.
Employees who are prepared to challenge their former employers in court have to spend time and money engaging a lawyer. It is also extremely stressful to cope with a new job while being sued by a former employer.
Such restrictive clauses, in the cases that have gone before the courts, are unenforceable as they are generally against public policy ("Trader wins court wrangle over $2m bonus payout"; Aug 11, 2012, and "Two cleared of breaching job contract by joining rival firm"; Aug 25, 2004).
A restraint of trade clause offers unfair protection to the interest of the employers and interferes with the interest of the public, because it gives the employers a monopoly in their trade, stifles competition and affects the employee's liberty to work freely.
Is it reasonable to stop someone from working for a competitor even though his job is of a different nature from his previous job? Is it reasonable to stop someone from joining a rival firm for as long as two years?
The Employment Act should mandate that such disputes be referred to the Manpower Ministry for mediation before the employer can proceed with court action.
This is to prevent employers from using unnecessary legal means to threaten their former employees just because they are joining a rival company.
Francis Cheng
No comments:
Post a Comment