header-logo header-logo

Non-compete proposals set off alarm bells

16 May 2023
Issue: 8025 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail
Employment lawyers have expressed concerns about government proposals to limit non-compete clauses and water down the Working Time Regulations (WTR).

Business secretary Kemi Badenoch launched the proposals last week in a policy paper, ‘Smarter regulation to grow the economy’. The launch coincided with Badenoch’s announcement that she was dropping the sunset clauses in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which many lawyers had warned would damage business interests and cause chaos.

The proposals include legislating to restrict non-compete clauses to three months, which, the paper states, will not interfere with employers’ ability to use gardening leave or non-solicitation clauses, nor will it affect arrangements on confidentiality clauses.

The government would also reform the WTR, removing the current requirement on employers to keep working hour records, reintroducing rolled-up holiday, which has been deemed unlawful by EU case law, and merging the separate ‘basic’ and ‘additional’ leave entitlements under the WTR into one entitlement to annual leave.

Charlie Barnes, head of employment legal services at RSM UK, said the change to non-compete clauses could be ‘significant’ for businesses, ‘particularly in niche innovative industries where the pool of competition is limited’.

Barnes warned it could ‘have the reverse effect on innovation if companies feel unable to protect themselves from a key employee leaving to join a competitor, taking confidential information with them, in just three months. If these changes are made, such businesses will need to revisit contracts of employment to require longer paid notice periods or garden leave clauses to keep senior leavers away from competitors for more than three months.

‘This will impose a larger financial burden on businesses.’

Barnes said the WTR proposals may not create as big a boost for businesses as the government anticipated, since employers would still be required to keep records of working time in order to comply with national minimum wage legislation and holiday pay obligations.

Issue: 8025 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll