Page 30 - BOSS Today Issue 13
P. 30

HR





















           BULLYBOY









           TACTICS








           BACKFIRE










           Strong arm tactics against former employees can
           sometimes be futile, as a Court of Appeal ruling shows



                  eavy handed tactics by   undertakings, the employer   made no effort to seek to   “Pressing
                  employers came in for   attempted to seek an injunction,   resolve its concerns amicably
           Hcriticism in Caterpillar   first in the High Court and then   before resorting to threats of   on with
           Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v   in the Court of Appeal.  proceedings.
           de Crean, where the Court of   But the courts were highly   It is true that some employers,   proceedings
           Appeal upheld the refusal of an   critical of the employer’s   when they are concerned about
           injunction application against a   overreaction to the situation,   departing employees possibly   without
           former employee.            considering it had chosen not   engaging in competitive activity,
             Mrs de Crean had a contract   to incorporate any express   sometimes adopt the tactic   a good
           with Caterpillar that included a   restrictive covenants in its   of chancing their arm and   foundation
           confidentiality agreement but   former employee’s contract of   threatening proceedings. While
           did not restrict her activities   employment.          such tactics may sometimes   could prove
           once her employment ended.    In particular, the employer   be effective if the employee
           Three weeks after she resigned   had not clearly set out what   caves in quickly, the case above   futile and
           to join another company,    it meant by “confidential   demonstrates that pressing on
           the employer sent her a     information” and sought an   with proceedings without a   expensive.”
           letter alleging misconduct   open-ended injunction that the   good foundation is likely to be a
           and demanding that she      Court of Appeal described as   futile and expensive process.
           give undertakings not to    “hopelessly wide and vague”.
           use or disclose confidential   It had also given Mrs de Crean   Q FOR MORE INFORMATION,
           information in her new job.   an unreasonably short time   CONTACT YOUR BOSS HR
           When she refused to give such   to respond to its letter, and   ADVISER ON 0845 450 1565.

           30  BOSS TODAY | July/August 2012


        Boss p30-p31 copy.indd   2                                                                                04/07/2012   13:41
   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35