Restraining the employees during the period of employment is a very common practice and it is done by the way of restrictive covenants to protect the trade secrets and the confidential information. However, this violates the fundamental right of the employee to carry out a profession or business of his choice.
In the Whipro Case, the view of the court, while determining whether the contract is in restrain of trade or not, is more stringent for an employer-employee contract than in partnership contract, collaboration contract, franchise contract or commercial contracts. The reason behind this is the wide gap between the employer and employee which has given the employer a more dominant position over the employee whereas, in other contracts, both the parties deal with each other on an equal footing. .1
In a recent judgment of Delhi High
…show more content…
It is well settled that such post termination restraint, under Indian Law, is in violation of Section 27 of the Contract Act. Such contracts are unenforceable, void and against the public policy. What is prohibited by law cannot be permitted by Court's injunction.5
In the Wipro Case6, the court held that negative covenants between employer and employee contracts pertaining to the period post termination and restricting an employee's right to seek employment and/or to do business in the same field as the employer would be in restraint of trade and void. No employee can be confronted with the situation where he has to either work for the present employer or be forced to idleness.
In the Pepsi Foods case7, the court held that injunction that would have a direct impact of curtailing the freedom of employees for improving their future prospects and service conditions by changing their employment and restrict their right to seek and search for better employment shall not be
In Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC, plaintiff was looking for a job with defendant, Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC. Plaintiff, Laduzinski, claimed that he was lured away from his job under false pretenses since defendants hired him to get access to his contacts. Nine months later, after plaintiff had given all his contacts, the manager of the Alvarez companies fired him because there was no work for him. Laduzinski brought a claim to recover damages for fraud in the inducement. The lower court dismissed plaintiff’s claims because plaintiff was an “at will” employee. After Laduzinski appealed, the issues were whether the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement, despite that Laduzinski was an at-will employee; and whether the alleged misrepresentations were actionable statements of present fact or non-actionable future promises.
The Jaffee-Redmond ruling heavily impacted how all organizations and firms deal with staff members’ rights. Today, the legal human resource environment requires that all key organizational professionals know and understand the laws affected by this case. Prospective job candidates who are well-versed in these laws and similar issues can outmaneuver less knowledgeable candidates. Training in current privacy laws are a valuable asset in several settings, such as:
Bennett-Alexander, Dawn D. & Hartman, Laura P. (2001). Employment Law for Business (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Primis Custom Publishing. Downloaded February 4, 2008 from the data base of http://www.eeoc.gov
The law provides several rights and freedoms, but there are also limits to the rights provided to employees according to the law. Employee rights are limited to performance in the sense that, they should work to meet the employers targets irrespective of the rights granted to them by the law (John, 2015). Secondly, employee’s rights are limited to discipline. Hence, they should be always committed towards following work place rules and procedures including time adherence, respect of organizations property, and dressing properly at the place of work.
Mortimer, M., 2006. Employment Law and Labor Law. Employlaw.com retrieved December 11, 2008 from: http://www.employlaw.com/hoffa.htm
Moran, J. J. (2008). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Outlawing certain conduct by employers that generally has the effect of either preventing the organization of employees or emasculating their unions where they do exist; these forbidden acts are called unfair labor practices.
United States of America. National Employment Law Project. National Employment Law Project. N.p., Jan. 2011. Web. 18 May 2014.
Management maintains the right to direct all business activities. In order to retain as much authority as possible in the direction of the workplace, management has sought to include certain provisions in collective bargaining agreements. Management has no rights over individual people within the organization, but does maintain rights to property, which are real and legally enforceable. Management has sole discretion and flexibility in deployment and discipline issues and maintains the right to assign measures to people within the compa...
In general the contract of Mudarabah allows anyone of the contracting parties to terminate the contract unilaterally. The contract shall not be terminated unilaterally if the manager has commenced the work or when both parties have agreed not to terminate the contract during a specified time.
An injunction is a command of the court directing the defendant to refrain from doing something in breach of the contract. This is a preventive relief. Moreover, it can be filed as a separate request directly with the court. Injunctions are often awarded in cases involving a breach of contract which may be issued instead of a monetary damages award. On the other hand, the value of an item will not be determined as well as knowing when monetary damages will not be suited in a remedy for the non-breaching party’s losses. When come in connecting in contracts together with the injunction, it required the breaching party to perform contract terms that they violated like delivering goods or paying for the services. For instance, it will prohibit them from selling goods and services that they have promised in
They gave reason to P4P, that they were understood about the efficiency, but the productivity decreasing was not employees’ fault. Beside, there was an indication that the defendant would diversify the business, instead of paying employees’ separation pay.
But, these laws always changing, depending on the work setting or policies set by any specific organizations. Because there are so many different work environments, each claim of privacy has to be evaluated based on the actual conditions of the workplace (Smith & Burg, 2015). This is why policies must be set according to the CEO needs. If the organization does not allow the use of the internet for any personal use, than the employee must follow such guidelines. This eliminates employee privacy right violations, because the policy will informs them of the monitoring during the hiring
Part 2 of Employer Duties and Rights- management rights, subcontracting, just-cause discipline and discharge, and safety standards.