If a forced payment has been made to the employee; Its restriction agreement with Siemens prohibited it from doing so for a period of one year after the termination of his duties at Siemens. In the agreement, the applicant agreed not to disclose the trade secrets and confidential information provided by Siemens. The Labour Tribunal found that in cases where there were no explicit or derivative statements about the parties` intention to innovate, the restriction of the trade agreement was binding and was not replaced by the new employment contract. In particular, the new employment contract replaced only the Doka employment contract. The Court was therefore satisfied that there was no basis for Form-Scaff to waive one of its rights with respect to the restriction agreement. In situations where it is increasingly common for workers to engage in jobs with competitors, it is essential that the restriction of trade agreements be complete and irrefutable. Moreover, given that the courts have placed particularly heavy requirements for the implementation of the restriction of trade agreements, a well-developed and tailored limitation of the trade agreement should not only strengthen an employer`s position, but also deter workers from engaging in employment with competitors, the thus mitigating an employer`s usual risk of such behaviour. A restriction of the trade agreement is enforceable, unless it proves unreasonable – and the obligation to show that it is unreasonable rests with the worker. The Tribunal found that, in the circumstances, the deference was neither inappropriate nor contrary to public policy. The restraint was maintained. The complexity of these things is illustrated above. Employers should be aware that a restriction agreement is not easy to reach – and just as this deference decision was made against the complainant, it could have gone just as easily in the other direction.
In prohibiting Reddy – the complainant – from having a job with Ericsson, the court found that it was not necessary to believe that Reddy would actually use trade secrets and confidential information in his new job – but that it was sufficient for him to do so. The Tribunal found that the purpose of the deduction was to prevent a person with knowledge of confidential technologies that can be obtained through that use from using it to the detriment of the employer.