A recent employment case found that an employer whose employee had started a competing business during his employment period was entitled to compensation, even though the employer could not prove unlawful misappropriation of its confidential information or solicitation of its clients.
Case law has long held that an employee who starts a competing business or goes to work for a competitor of his or her employer does not breach his or her obligations towards the employer, unless such activities amount to a breach of a concrete additional obligation, the most commonly cited being non-disclosure of confidential information.
This case law is justified by the principles of:
protecting an employee's freedom of occupation and his or her ability to make a living; and bridging the power gap between employees and employers. As a result, employers whose employees start competing businesses or go to work for a competitor are generally reluctant to file claims, unless they can substantiate a breach of a concrete additional employee obligation.
Conversely, an employee's freedom of occupation has limitations which are not necessarily contingent on the misappropriation of his or her employer's confidential information. For example, under case law, a full-time employee is prohibited from undertaking additional employment elsewhere, unless specific authorisation is obtained from the employer. Even a part-time employee may be prohibited from working for a competitor, and full and part-time employees are prohibited from soliciting their employer's business during their employment.
In the case of an employee soliciting their employer's business, the employer can apply for injunctive relief. However, other legal remedies are available in less extreme circumstances.
In Employment Case 4354-12-13 A, Kramer David Ltd v Glitznikov (August 9 2016), the employee started a competing business during his employment and partially on the employer's time. Although the employer was unable to prove the...