Company agreement not to emply employees from another company

mp3ireland2

HI,
I am an engineer working for XXXXX, I applied for a Job with YYY and got an interview. I had heard a rumor that there was an agreement between these two companies that they don't employ each other's staff, it seemed crazy but just asked anyway. I personally think it may mean they don't head hunt each other's staff.

I got a call this morning saying they can't offer me the interview as they can't employ XXXXX staff. I asked if this agreement is legal? That it doesn't sound like equal opportunities to me? It was a different member of staff that I had previously been dealing with, as he has since left the company. She said "Oh you applied directly" (possibly just to buy her some time) and said she'll give me a call back.

I am quite angry over this, maybe this agreement is perfectly fine but it doesn't make sense to me. I am currently working in Ireland and the job I applied for was in Scotland. I always find that UK jobs are big into equal opportunities and I would see this as a form of discrimination.

Anybody ever heard of anything similar?

Procrastastudy

mp3ireland2 wrote: »

HI,
I am an engineer working for X, I applied for a Job with Y and got an interview. I had heard a rumor that there was an agreement between these two companies that they don't employ each other's staff, it seemed crazy but just asked anyway. I personally think it may mean they don't head hunt each other's staff.

I got a call this morning saying they can't offer me the interview as they can't employ X's staff. I asked if this agreement is legal? That it doesn't sound like equal opportunities to me? It was a different member of staff that I had previously been dealing with, as he has since left the company. She said "Oh you applied directly" (possibly just to buy her some time) and said she'll give me a call back.

I am quite angry over this, maybe this agreement is perfectly fine but it doesn't make sense to me. I am currently working in Ireland and the job I applied for was in Scotland. I always find that UK jobs are big into equal opportunities and I would see this as a form of discrimination.

Anybody ever heard of anything similar?

Regards,
C

Discrimination falls in to one of several distinct categories this isn't one. I'm not, however, saying this is legal I simply don't know. At a stretch I suppose it could amount to a restraint of trade - but I doubt it.

I'm always amazed at how honest some companies are. I'd have interviewed you and then made up some excuse. You decide which is better.

coylemj

Do you really want your current employer to know that you applied for a job with a competitor?

Just wondering why you felt the need to name the two companies.

NoQuarter

coylemj wrote: »

Do you really want your current employer to know that you applied for a job with a competitor?

Just wondering why you felt the need to name the two companies.

And yourself!

mp3ireland2

Yeah i shouldn't have gave my details I suppose but I'm just quite angry, so wasn't thinking.... as I don't think companies making agreements like this should be allowed, really wanted that job!

Marcusm

I think the question is whether it is anti competitive behaviours rather than discrimination as you have not been excluded on any of the specified grounds (race, age, gender, disability, religion, sexual orientation etc).

28064212

In some industries it's practically a given. Knowing how a competitor conducts its business can be hugely advantageous. Also, clients may sometimes follow an employee over an employer

mp3ireland2

28064212 wrote: »

In some industries it's practically a given. Knowing how a competitor conducts its business can be hugely advantageous. Also, clients may sometimes follow an employee over an employer

Yeah when I left a job in another industry I'd to sign a wavier saying I wouldn't work for a company in that line of business for three years. A guy I used to work with has just got a job with them, he left here about a year ago but worked from somebody else in the mean time though.

Went anonymously through a third party to HR and this is what he received back....
"we don't have a clause in our contract of employments however this may be an agreement made with "Y" apart from through HR."

krd

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'm always amazed at how honest some companies are.

Honest, or stupid? Often people internally will know the real reason someone didn't get a job. They're not meant to tell the person. Especially if it's on some dodgy grounds.

An agreement not to poach staff, is typically a gentlemen's agreement. The gentlemen do not want to ruffle each others feathers - as it might make it difficult for them to job hop to each others companies.

I'd have interviewed you and then made up some excuse. You decide which is better.

That's what happens 99 times out 100. Anti-discrimination law is there but it doesn't really change peoples' prejudices. The cover-all and 'stay out of jail', these days is "we just didn't think they were the right fit for the job".

mp3ireland2

krd wrote: »

Honest, or stupid? Often people internally will know the real reason someone didn't get a job. They're not meant to tell the person. Especially if it's on some dodgy grounds.

An agreement not to poach staff, is typically a gentlemen's agreement. The gentlemen do not want to ruffle each others feathers - as it might make it difficult for them to job hop to each others companies.



That's what happens 99 times out 100. Anti-discrimination law is there but it doesn't really change peoples' prejudices. The cover-all and 'stay out of jail', these days is "we just didn't think they were the right fit for the job".

Yeah i just think it's strange that this agreement was mentioned to my friend who got a job there... and then I asked a senior member of staff here and he knew about it. Think it's mad that when one place has over 20,000 employees world wide and the other over 10,000 that these gentlemen agreements can exist!

She hasn't rang back yet anyway! Not the start to the week I was hoping for! Even if they did give me an interview now I wouldn't expect it to be any mroe than a token one to shut me up!

krd

28064212 wrote: »

In some industries it's practically a given. Knowing how a competitor conducts its business can be hugely advantageous. Also, clients may sometimes follow an employee over an employer

When you work for a company, they do not own you. You are not a slave.

There's this marvellous attitude among right-wingers - the rugby aficionados types. That they should be free to do business as they like. Sack whoever they like for whatever reason they like. Talk loads of balls about competing and "leadership". But they really get the hump, when one of their employees skips off to another company.

Even the term poaching exposes the true sentiment. When "leaders" are competing for business they're like noble rugby players striding the pitch tackling and a little acceptable cheating, when an employee hops ship for their own economic advantage, they're dirty ungrateful poachers.

I did work for a company where they got very pissed off when sales people went to work for competitors. But when it came down it, they treated their sales staff like crap. And their competitors were willing to treat them better. It's a free country, not just for rugby fans and golfers.

krd

mp3ireland2 wrote: »

Yeah i just think it's strange that this agreement was mentioned to my friend who got a job there... and then I asked a senior member of staff here and he knew about it. Think it's mad that when one place has over 20,000 employees world wide and the other over 10,000 that these gentlemen agreements can exist!

No, they do have gentlemen's agreements. Not everyone does it but some companies do.

Some big companies. Like Eircom and BT, they bid for big jobs, and then say if BT wins the contract, they can and do turn around and get Eircom to do the work. And it works the other way around.

Or if you're working for a company that subcontracts to a bigger company, there's a general understanding you don't offer your subcontractors jobs.

professore

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'm always amazed at how honest some companies are. I'd have interviewed you and then made up some excuse. You decide which is better.

Self-interest. If word gets out that your company are a bunch of shysters you can watch your clients disappear. Would you deal with a company that screwed over someone you know?

seamus

It's technically legal.

However there are caveats in terms of whether it functionally restricts your ability to move job.

If you imagine for the moment that your specialisation involves GSM networks. You work for Vodafone, but you discover that all four of the operators have a signed agreement that they will not hire eachother's staff.

While there would likely be a couple of very small companies dotted around the place that you could get a job with, such an agreement would functionally prevent you from seeking employment in your field in Ireland and therefore would functionally prevent you from changing your job. Thus, it would be an infringement on your rights.

However, if you work for a coffee shop and they have an agreement with the coffee shop next door that they won't poach eachother's staff, then there's not really any problem there since there are hundreds of other coffee shops where you could get a job.

mp3ireland2

seamus wrote: »

It's technically legal.

However there are caveats in terms of whether it functionally restricts your ability to move job.

If you imagine for the moment that your specialisation involves GSM networks. You work for Vodafone, but you discover that all four of the operators have a signed agreement that they will not hire eachother's staff.

While there would likely be a couple of very small companies dotted around the place that you could get a job with, such an agreement would functionally prevent you from seeking employment in your field in Ireland and therefore would functionally prevent you from changing your job. Thus, it would be an infringement on your rights.

However, if you work for a coffee shop and they have an agreement with the coffee shop next door that they won't poach eachother's staff, then there's not really any problem there since there are hundreds of other coffee shops where you could get a job.

There are no real competitors in Ireland, I was trying to change my job and move to Scotland.... so annoying as I was rather confident of getting the job. It has now demotivated me from working in my current job, I wouldn't mind if we were told from the outset, as I had to sign a wavier in a previous job for example, it's just the sneaky and sly aspect of it that irritates me.

Although to summise it seems perfectly legal and this isn't the morally just or whinging section so it seems i've got my answer :mad:

Procrastastudy

seamus wrote: »

It's technically legal.

However there are caveats in terms of whether it functionally restricts your ability to move job.

If you imagine for the moment that your specialisation involves GSM networks. You work for Vodafone, but you discover that all four of the operators have a signed agreement that they will not hire eachother's staff.

While there would likely be a couple of very small companies dotted around the place that you could get a job with, such an agreement would functionally prevent you from seeking employment in your field in Ireland and therefore would functionally prevent you from changing your job. Thus, it would be an infringement on your rights.

However, if you work for a coffee shop and they have an agreement with the coffee shop next door that they won't poach eachother's staff, then there's not really any problem there since there are hundreds of other coffee shops where you could get a job.

To be fair this would be a restraint of trade clause that you are describing - the OP hasn't signed one - I realise it was me that brought it up.

Dubwat

I'm not a lawyer and I'm probably not going to be very helpful - I'm having one of those 'tip of the tongue' moments. I've tried searching for it but I keep getting drug ads on google!!

I seem to remember a case, maybe a decade ago, in Northern Ireland where an employee moved from Pharma company A to Pharma company B. Pharma company A sued to stop the employee leaving because it was alleged he'd be taking trade secrets etc. *I think* the NI courts ruled that it was ok for the guy to move. Maybe the same laws apply in Scotland... Maybe a legal person might remember this case and post more accurate info on it.

On another note, isn't that why 'gardening leave' was invented when employees moved to rival firms??

krd

Dubwat wrote: »

On another note, isn't that why 'gardening leave' was invented when employees moved to rival firms??

Often when someone sells a company, there's a 'do not compete' clause as part of the deal. Which is basically to stop the seller setting up a brand new shop - and probably nabbing all their customers back from who they've sold the company to. Sometimes managers in the company that's just been purchased also are signed up to 'do not compete' clauses. And they get pay offs.

There's usually a time limit on the clause. 'gardening leave' is a kind of sneaky thing. When the guys have been paid off not to compete, get together and get a competing company started in secret.

ynotonavillus

Sounds like a cartel agreement...

Operating across borders..... consider European law...

Perhaps indirect discrimination.

If the effect of the agreement was such that the company YYYY was refusing to employ workers from the XXXX and this was predominantly affecting only Irish people then that could amount to Indirect discrimination on grounds of race,

It is a complex area but very flexible.

more info here.

http://rechtenforum.nl/forum/portal/title/Indirect+discrimination+in+EC+law/vision/14565/