Such debates are likely to continue during the 2019 legislature, with several states considering non-competition reforms. In a small production company, several employees sold the company`s product from their garages. They bought the products legally from the company and it was a lucrative side business for them. Under current legislation, workers often cannot afford to fight an abusive agreement, as the best thing they can hope for is the cancellation or limitation of the agreement. While attorneys general have been the main architects of enforcement measures against illegal non-competition rules and non-poaching agreements, most attorneys general do not have employees who are primarily dedicated to the enforcement of employment contracts. The Committee on Agriculture, Policy, Policy and Policy of the Non-competitors were traditionally a matter of public law, but recent initiatives to address them at the federal level are worth mentioning and could change the whole way these contracts are analysed and implemented. Generally speaking, the courts have attempted to strike a balance between these interests by allowing and imposing non-compete rules for employees – usually highly skilled and highly compensated employees – for whom the employer has a legitimate business reason, such as the protection of trade secrets or the goodwill of customers. The laws of Oregon and Massachusetts prevent them from hindering the excessive use of non-competitors by making it more expensive for employers to enforce them from the outset. In these countries, it is necessary to support a non-competition clause through a payment of money or a “garden holiday” in order to be applicable. Garden leave, originally conceived in UK law, is a period during which an employer pays a worker`s salary or part of it in exchange for their withdrawal from the labour market.  Because of the obvious costs involved, garden holidays help determine which employees have information or relationships that are so valuable to the employer that they are willing to pay their salary (or part of their salary) to deter them from going to a competitor.
 Of course, these proposals would have a positive impact on workers. However, the CAP believes that the following reforms will go much further in order to limit the use of such agreements by suburban companies. Restrictive agreements should not be broader than is necessary to protect your “legitimate business interests”. . . .
- No categories