In the dynamic business landscape of Australia, protecting your business interests is paramount. One way to safeguard these interests is through the use of restraint of trade clauses in employment contracts. These clauses are designed to prevent former employees from engaging in activities that could harm your business after they leave. However, their enforceability is nuanced and requires careful consideration. This article provides a comprehensive overview of restraint of trade clauses and offers practical insights for business owners.

What Are Restraint of Trade Clauses?

Restraint of trade clauses are provisions in employment contracts that restrict a former employee's ability to work in certain capacities, locations, or industries for a specified period after leaving your company. These clauses typically aim to:

1. Protect Confidential Information: Prevent former employees from using proprietary information or trade secrets to benefit competitors.
2. Preserve Client Relationships: Ensure former employees do not solicit your clients or customers.
3. Maintain Workforce Stability: Prevent former employees from poaching your current staff.

Legal Framework in Australia

The enforceability of restraint of trade clauses in Australia is governed by common law principles and varies by jurisdiction. The key legal standard is that such clauses must be reasonable to be enforceable. Australian courts generally scrutinize these clauses to ensure they are not overly restrictive and that they serve a legitimate business interest.

Reasonableness Test

Courts apply a reasonableness test to determine the validity of restraint of trade clauses, focusing on several factors:

1. Duration: The length of time the restraint applies. Shorter durations are more likely to be deemed reasonable.
2. Geographic Scope: The geographic area covered by the restraint. Narrower scopes are more likely to be upheld.
3. Scope of Activities: The specific activities restricted. Clauses that are too broad may be struck down.
4. Legitimate Business Interests: The business interests the clause aims to protect must be legitimate and substantial.

When is a Restraint of Trade Clause Deemed Unreasonable?

A restraint of trade clause will be deemed unreasonable if it does not balance the employer's need to protect their business interests with the employee's right to earn a livelihood. Here are key instances when such a clause might be considered unreasonable:

1. Excessive Duration: If the restraint period is unnecessarily long, it may be deemed unreasonable. For instance, a clause that restricts an employee for several years, when a few months would suffice to protect business interests, is likely to be invalidated.
2. Overly Broad Geographic Scope: If the geographic area covered by the restraint is excessively wide and not justifiable by the employer's business reach, the clause may be struck down. For example, restricting an employee from working anywhere in Australia when the business operates only in one state.
3. Unreasonable Scope of Activities: Clauses that broadly restrict an employee from engaging in any competitive activity, regardless of relevance to the business, are likely to be considered unreasonable. The restraint must be specific to activities that genuinely pose a threat to the employer's business.
4. Lack of Legitimate Business Interest: If the employer cannot demonstrate a legitimate business interest that the restraint seeks to protect, such as protecting trade secrets or client relationships, the clause will likely be invalidated.
5. Undue Hardship on the Employee: If the clause imposes an undue hardship on the employee, preventing them from earning a living in their field, it may be deemed unreasonable. The courts will weigh the necessity of the restraint against the employee's need to find suitable employment.

Drafting Effective Restraint Clauses

To enhance the likelihood of enforceability, consider the following best practices when drafting restraint of trade clauses:

1. Clearly Define the Terms: Be specific about the duration, geographic scope, and restricted activities.
2. Tailor Clauses to Individual Roles: Customize clauses based on the employee’s role and level of access to sensitive information.
3. Include a Severability Clause: This allows a court to modify the clause to make it enforceable rather than invalidating it entirely.
4. Review Regularly: Periodically review and update clauses to ensure they remain relevant and reasonable.

Practical Tips for Business Owners

1. Legal Advice: Always seek legal advice when drafting or enforcing restraint of trade clauses. An experienced employment lawyer can help tailor clauses to your specific needs and ensure compliance with current laws.
2. Negotiation and Communication: Clearly communicate the purpose and implications of these clauses to prospective employees during the hiring process. This transparency can help mitigate disputes later.
3. Document Justification: Keep detailed records of the reasons for including restraint clauses in employment contracts. This can be crucial evidence if the clause’s reasonableness is challenged in court.

Recent Case Law: McMurchy v Employsure Pty Ltd; Kumaran v Employsure Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 201

A recent appeal judgment in the case of McMurchy v Employsure Pty Ltd; Kumaran v Employsure Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 201 provides valuable insights into the application and enforceability of restraint of trade clauses. The Court of Appeal of New South Wales examined the reasonableness of the restraint clauses and upheld a decision that a nine-month post-employment restraint clause was reasonable and enforceable against a former sales manager who joined a competitor’s business. The Court also upheld the finding that the former sales manager had poached a colleague in breach of his duties owed to his former employer.

In this case, the Court evaluated the following aspects:

1. Duration and Geographic Scope: The Court found that the duration of the restraint (12 months) and the geographic scope (nationwide) were excessive given the employees' roles and the nature of the business. The Court emphasized the need for a clear connection between the geographic scope and the actual business operations of the employer.
2. Legitimate Business Interests: Employsure argued that the restraints were necessary to protect its confidential information and client relationships. However, the Court found that the restraints went beyond what was reasonably necessary to protect these interests, noting that the company had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the extensive restrictions.
3. Hardship on Employees: The Court considered the significant impact on the former employees' ability to find new employment. The restraints were deemed to impose undue hardship, especially given the broad industry scope of the restrictions.

The judgment highlighted the importance of tailoring restraint clauses to the specific circumstances of the employee and the business. It underscored that excessively broad or long restraints are likely to be deemed unreasonable and unenforceable.

Specific Legal Considerations in New South Wales

In New South Wales, the legal framework for restraint of trade clauses is slightly different due to the Restraints of Trade Act 1976. This means that if a restraint clause is overly broad, NSW Courts are able to "read down” or modify it to a reasonable scope, to ensure its effect is reasonable.

For example, if a non-compete clause restricts an employee from working in any capacity for a competitor for five years across the entire country, a court might find this excessive, the Court could reduce the duration to one year and limit the geographic scope to the specific region where the employer operates. This approach ensures that the non-compete clause is not entirely voided but adjusted to a reasonable extent.

This legislative nuance makes it particularly important for business owners in New South Wales to draft clear, reasonable, and justifiable restraint clauses to protect their business interests effectively while complying with legal standards.

Competitive Impacts of Non-Compete Clauses and Regulatory Scrutiny

The competitive impacts of non-compete clauses have come under increased scrutiny in Australia. On April 12, 2023, Gina Cass-Gottlieb, Chairperson of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), confirmed that the ACCC was investigating whether restrictive employment clauses, including non-compete clauses, were hampering economic growth and competition.

Non-compete clauses can potentially stifle competition by limiting the ability of employees to move freely between jobs, thereby reducing the competitive pressure on businesses to innovate and improve. Such clauses can also restrict the availability of skilled labor in the market, leading to inefficiencies and higher costs for businesses seeking specialized talent.

The ACCC's investigation reflects a growing concern that overly restrictive non-compete clauses could be detrimental to the broader economy by:

1. Reducing Labor Market Mobility: By preventing employees from moving to competing firms, non-compete clauses can reduce the overall fluidity and dynamism of the labor market.
2. Inhibiting Innovation: When employees are restricted from joining competitors, knowledge transfer and innovation can be stifled, slowing overall industry progress.
3. Increasing Employer Power: Non-compete clauses can increase the bargaining power of employers over employees, potentially leading to lower wages and less favorable working conditions.

Given these potential negative impacts, the ACCC is examining whether regulatory action is justified to ensure that non-compete clauses are used appropriately and do not unduly restrict competition. This scrutiny is part of a broader trend towards ensuring that employment practices support a competitive and dynamic economy.

Enforcing Restraint Clauses

If you believe a former employee is violating a restraint of trade clause, take the following steps:

1. Seek Legal Counsel: Consult with an employment lawyer to assess the situation and determine the best course of action.
2. Issue a Cease and Desist Letter: This formal notice can often resolve the issue without litigation.
3. Court Action: If necessary, pursue legal action to enforce the clause and seek damages or injunctive relief.

Conclusion

Restraint of trade clauses are valuable tools for protecting your business interests, but they must be carefully crafted and judiciously enforced to be effective and legally valid. By understanding the legal landscape and adhering to best practices, business owners can use these clauses to safeguard their competitive edge while respecting the rights of former employees. Always prioritize legal guidance to navigate the complexities of restraint of trade clauses in Australia, particularly in jurisdictions like New South Wales with specific legislative considerations. Additionally, stay informed about regulatory developments, as the ACCC's scrutiny of restrictive employment clauses could lead to significant changes in how these clauses are viewed and enforced in the future.

Savvy Workplace Solutions

Organisations depend on their people to overcome business challenges and deliver results. Savvy Human Resources consulting service for Brisbane, Gold Coast and the NSW Northern Rivers is about leveraging our know-how, experience and commercial insight to design and execute practical human resources strategies and programs that enable business performance through people performance. Learn more......

Savvy HR Services

Dealing with misconduct in the workplace can be complicated and a second opinion and Savvy HR advice can be invaluable.

As experienced HR specialists Savvy HR helps manage employee relations matters including managing performance, grievances and workplace investigations. Savvy HR has advised a range of blue and white collar employers on their ER strategy and IR obligations and directly advises on managing complex performance issues, such as employee theft, bullying, fraud and sexual harassment.

For workplace consulting, employment advice, employment relations support Ballina, Brisbane & Sydney contact Savvy HR.

For Human Resources Consulting Gold Coast Human Resources Ballina Human Resources Sydney contact Savvy HR.

Prohibition on republication

No part of this publication may be copied or reproduced without the written consent of Savvy Human Resources Associates Pty Ltd (SAVVYHR).

Disclaimer

This publication is provided by way of general guidance only and is for information purposes only. It is not to be construed by the reader as legal advice or as a recommendation to take a particular course of action in the conduct of their business or personal affairs. We do not guarantee that the information in this article is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. You should not rely upon the material as a basis for action that may expose you to a legal liability, injury, loss or damage and it is recommended that you obtain your own advice relevant to your particular circumstances.