Do I have to disclose where my new job is to my employer when giving my notice?

Outcastangel

I work for a healthcare agency. I'm currently in the recruitment process for a place that I have been working in via the agency.

To give some context, the agency is small but is part of a franchise. The office manager is not the most pleasant person and has actually emailed the place I am moving to about previous employees being poached to work for them directly and accused management of doing so. Even when I went for my interview, one of the interviewers (I hadn't met them prior to the interview) commented on the fact that my current employer was not a referee. And then said, "it's probably best, we don't need to step on their toes. But you know they'll have a heart attack when they find out, if you were to be sucessful".

I know when I hand in my notice that my current manager will ask me where I am moving to, do I have to tell them?

My own logic is that it's my personal business and I shouldn't have to tell them, but I just want to see if legally that's correct? Or if they're even allowed to ask if you don't tell them yourself. The manager is the type to demand an answer. I've had some tell me they aren't suppose to ask but can't seem to find any information on this.

Any help is appreciated.

yabadabado

Its absolutely none of their business.Hand in your notice and give whatever notice is required in your contract. After that they can take a hike.

whippet

Tell them you are in the final round of an interview in McDonalds

frankythefish

I left an employer previously. They were unhappy that I chose to leave. I made the mistake of telling them where i was moving to for my new role. 1st day in my new role and my new boss gets a call from my old boss where he is complaining about me and warning new boss about me. I kid you not. New boss ignored all of what he said but nonetheless it was far from ideal.

yabadabado

frankythefish wrote: »

I left an employer previously. They were unhappy that I chose to leave. I made the mistake of telling them where i was moving to for my new role. 1st day in my new role and my new boss gets a call from my old boss where he is complaining about me and warning new boss about me. I kid you not. New boss ignored all of what he said but nonetheless it was far from ideal.

Very foolish of your ex employer to do that.

yabadabado

whippet wrote: »

Tell them you are in the final round of an interview in McDonalds

Tell them straight out it's none of their business. Not a whole lot they can do, make sure to work out your notice and be gone then.
They have no right to know.

frankythefish

yabadabado wrote: »

Very foolish of your ex employer to do that.

Guy was a bellend. He was an accountant and barrister and figured he could do as he pleased.

To to Op I definitely say to not mention

4ensic15

Is there a non compete clause in your contract of employment?

the_syco

4ensic15 wrote: »

Is there a non compete clause in your contract of employment?

Pretty sure they hold no water in Ireland.

Marcusm

the_syco wrote: »

Pretty sure they hold no water in Ireland.

The OP mentioned healthcare AGENCY and states that the new job is in a place he has been placed by the agency. In general, such employment agencies will have clauses in each of the employment and client contracts precluding the parties entering into a separate contract to the exclusion of the agency.

The extent to which these are enforceable will depend on their terms but they cannot simply he ignored in Ireland.

4ensic15

the_syco wrote: »

Pretty sure they hold no water in Ireland.

Eh? Peter Marks has successfuly sued on its non compete clauses.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/hair-stylist-loses-court-application-1.167451

Strumms

Say NOTHING. You owe them nothing. They were not treating YOU well so I wouldn’t be getting all hot and bothered about contracts and you treating them well. If they ask...you are taking a career break.. won’t even be a lie, I’m sure you’ll have a few days ‘break’ in between employment situations.

Such a non poach contract would be between the hiring company and the agency, nothing to do with the employee.

In any case the OP has no obligation to tell their current employer where he is going. If his manager were to insist I'd politely at first and then not so politely if they persist to go and F themselves.

4ensic15

Deleted User wrote: »

Such a non poach contract would be between the hiring company and the agency, nothing to do with the employee.

In any case the OP has no obligation to tell their current employer where he is going. If his manager were to insist I'd politely at first and then not so politely if they persist to go and F themselves.

I asked whether there was a clause in the employee contract. There could well be restrictions on working for clients of the employing company for a period after the termination of employment.

Achasanai

frankythefish wrote: »

I left an employer previously. They were unhappy that I chose to leave. I made the mistake of telling them where i was moving to for my new role. 1st day in my new role and my new boss gets a call from my old boss where he is complaining about me and warning new boss about me. I kid you not. New boss ignored all of what he said but nonetheless it was far from ideal.

What a horrible thing to do! Could a case be made for slander/libel? I always heard that employers have to be very careful about even giving a negative reference.

4ensic15

Achasanai wrote: »

What a horrible thing to do! Could a case be made for slander/libel? I always heard that employers have to be very careful about even giving a negative reference.

Slander and libel are no longer torts.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

Eh? Peter Marks has successfuly sued on its non compete clauses.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/hair-stylist-loses-court-application-1.167451

That's a news article from 10 years ago involving a Circuit Court case, the issue has since been tested in the High Court. General restrictions may be applicable, but are not enforceable.

Whilst the substantive issue of whether the non compete clause of the contract is enforceable where there are specific restrictions has yet to be tested properly in a higher court, more recent judgements of the High Court have confirmed general restrictions on employment within the same or similar industry cast too wide a net and are unenforceable, most recently we have Hernandez vs Vodafone Ireland [2013] IEHC 70:-

The position which has been adopted by the defendant, namely, that it is not interfering with the plaintiff’s contractual arrangements with 02, that it has not done anything wrong, and that it is merely enforcing its contractual rights, is, to put it mildly, utterly naive

More importantly we have the 2005 High Court case, Murgitroyd & Co. Ltd. vs Purdy [2005] 3 I.R. 12:-

However, it is also clear that a more restrictive view is taken of covenants by employees than is taken of covenants given on sale of a business. Covenants against competition by former employees are never reasonable as such. They may be upheld only where the employee might obtain such personal knowledge of, and influence over, the customers of his employer as would enable him, if competition were allowed, to take advantage of his employer’s trade connection. . . .

In those circumstances I have come to the view that the prohibition in this case on all competition is too wide. A prohibition on dealing with (in addition to soliciting of) customers of the plaintiff would, in my view, have been reasonable and sufficient to meet any legitimate requirements of the plaintiff. The wider prohibition which restricts dealing with those who might be, but are not, such customers is excessive.

In those circumstances I must view the anti-competition clause as an unreasonable restraint of trade. On that basis I must determine the preliminary issue by finding that the anti-competition charge, while applicable, is unenforceable.

And between those two cases we have Net Affinity Ltd. vs Conaghan & Anor. [2012] 23 ELR 11:-

The first defendant is completely precluded by the clause from working for any individual or company that provides or plans to provide services similar to that which is provided by Net Affinity. To my mind, the clause at issue in this case is far too wide to protect the legitimate requirements of Net Affinity. It is a clause which does in fact prohibit all competition by Ms. Conaghan in the area of services provided by Net Affinity. As has been made clear in the judgment of Clarke J. in the case of Murgitroyd and Company Limited v. Purdy such a clause is too wide. In those circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the non-compete clause is void and unenforceable

The problem with these terms is the competing rights, namely an employee's right to earn a living and the employer's right to protect itself. Such clauses will only potentially be enforceable when it is reasonable as between the parties and it is consistent with the interests of the public, that is a principle long held.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

The problem with these terms is the competing rights, namely an employee's right to earn a living and the employer's right to protect itself. Such clauses will only potentially be enforceable when it is reasonable as between the parties and it is consistent with the interests of the public, that is a principle long held.

naturally and it is not correct to say non compete clauses don't hold water in ireland. Clauses which are overly restrictive by reason of the geographical area and duration and industrial scope will be void. I this case the o/p is going to work for a former client and depending on its terms there may be a valid enforceable clause in the employee contract.

Stoner

You don't have to tell them anything, but don't lie, just say " I'm moving on but staying in the industry, that's all I'm prepared to say about it, it's all I've told anyone if you've heard something different I'm not the source"

Just repeat that, you are being honest and it's best not to burn bridges.

Don't give a reason, be consistent, other people in business tend to twist other peoples words to suit their own agenda.

Outcastangel

Thanks everyone for the advice. I'm glad that my own view was confirmed.

Regarding the non compete. They do have a non compete clause that states an employee cannot work for a competitor for 2 years after the end of employment. However, after two other employees went to solicitors regarding this clause they were told the contracts were ok to sign because the clause was not legal. (I'm really not sure of the why and hows of that).

But also, after speaking to management in the new place they've told me that they're not competitors as they work together. Another agency or home help company would be considered a competitor

Outcastangel

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Such a non poach contract would be between the hiring company and the agency, nothing to do with the employee.

In any case the OP has no obligation to tell their current employer where he is going. If his manager were to insist I'd politely at first and then not so politely if they persist to go and F themselves.

The manager who was accused of poaching actually said they'll think he encouraged me to apply, which is not the case. So I just told him if an issue arises, I'll be reminding them I've free will to apply to where ever I wish to and that of course I'm looking for another job when I am paid just above minimum wage with no pay scale scheme or actual benefits.

4ensic15

Outcastangel wrote: »

Thanks everyone for the advice. I'm glad that my own view was confirmed.

Regarding the non compete. They do have a non compete clause that states an employee cannot work for a competitor for 2 years after the end of employment. However, after two other employees went to solicitors regarding this clause they were told the contracts were ok to sign because the clause was not legal. (I'm really not sure of the why and hows of that).

2 years is too long. Non-compete clauses have to be reasonable in duration. Longer than 12 months would be exceptional. You don't seem to be particularly senior as well which would make it much less likely to be reasonable.

Credit Checker Moose

Even where such non compete clauses might apply, there would still be no obligation to disclose where they were going afterwards.

I was asked once by a former employer where I was going and I simply told them I was taking time out to write a book. It was none of their business what I was doing outside of the notice period.

Outcastangel

4ensic15 wrote: »

2 years is too long. Non-compete clauses have to be reasonable in duration. Longer than 12 months would be exceptional. You don't seem to be particularly senior as well which would make it much less likely to be reasonable.

Ah ok! Yeah, I'm newly qualified. I started with them during college, just to get some experience and my foot in the door of the industry to be honest. But it's now gotten to the stage where I'm running from the company due to the managers attitude

4ensic15

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

Even where such non compete clauses might apply, there would still be no obligation to disclose where they were going afterwards.

I was asked once by a former employer where I was going and I simply told them I was taking time out to write a book. It was none of their business what I was doing outside of the notice period.

How does that prove anything? I drove through a red light once and the guards didn't stop me. Does that mean it is all right to go through red lights?

rock22

4ensic15 wrote: »

How does that prove anything? I drove through a red light once and the guards didn't stop me. Does that mean it is all right to go through red lights?

It answers the OP's question with an example!

Working for another agency in the same industry does not necessarily put the OP in 'competition' with the original employer and.

daheff

OP

tell them you are going to a different company. Tell them its a company in a different busines line(name someone). Don't get overly defensive as they'll think something is up if you do & might go sniffing and cause you some trouble.

Marcusm

rock22 wrote: »

It answers the OP's question with an example!

Working for another agency in the same industry does not necessarily put the OP in 'competition' with the original employer and.

Taking up paid direct employment with a client to which the agency had sent them on contract is the absolute essence of competition!

rock22

Marcusm wrote: »

Taking up paid direct employment with a client to which the agency had sent them on contract is the absolute essence of competition!

How?
Op is not setting up an agency to compete

Bandana boy

I think the current employer would have no case against an employee going to work where they are contracted and even if in the contract i think they would find it very hard to enforce in the EU area.

They could though and I see this regularly have a case against your new employer .
We use an agency all the time in my place and we have a fee we pay the contracting company if we move somebody from their books to ours under x amount of time paying them through the contractor. I imagine the question from your current employer is more about finding that information out so they can pursue your new employer for the likes of a finding fee .

seagull

Are you currently working for the new employer through the agency, or were you previously there through the agency? If you're currently on placement there through the agency, then I think the agency would have a case against yourself, the new employer, or both.

Marcusm

rock22 wrote: »

How?
Op is not setting up an agency to compete

Up until now, the agency has been receiving a fee (10, 15 or 30% of his salary likely) for the placement. By taking up direct employment, they lose the opportunity to earn that fee. For precisely this reason, agency contracts generally preclude direct engagements for a period of time after the agency arrangement.

rock22

Marcusm wrote: »

Up until now, the agency has been receiving a fee (10, 15 or 30% of his salary likely) for the placement. By taking up direct employment, they lose the opportunity to earn that fee. For precisely this reason, agency contracts generally preclude direct engagements for a period of time after the agency arrangement.

If the agency could successfully prevent the OP taking up employment in such circumstances, (something I very much doubt) then the OP would have very good reason not to tell the agency the name of the new employer.

4ensic15

rock22 wrote: »

If the agency could successfully prevent the OP taking up employment in such circumstances, (something I very much doubt) then the OP would have very good reason not to tell the agency the name of the new employer.

What good will that do the o/p. The new employer has some employees who previously worked with the o/p's current employer. It is virtually certain that the current employer will learn who the new employer is very quickly after the o/p starts work in the new job.

Outcastangel

Hi All,

Thanks for all the advice. I continued with the recruitment process and was waiting to hear more. The HR rep I was dealing with got in touch this week to ask for a referee from the current employer on request of the HR manager.

I gave her the details. I then got a call from the office manager who was surprisingly nice about giving a reference but said she was surprised and asked why I was leaving. She said she was shocked.

I then rang the HR rep about documents I needed to provide. She then mentioned that she hoped I wasnt left in hot water with the current employers, she said the office manager was extremely short with her and didn't seem happy. Uncomfortable few days to say the least.

However, happy news is I am handing my notice in and have a start date with my new employer and no issues have arisen.

cnocbui

seagull wrote: »

Are you currently working for the new employer through the agency, or were you previously there through the agency? If you're currently on placement there through the agency, then I think the agency would have a case against yourself, the new employer, or both.

Mightn't be a good look, or financially beneficial in terms of future prospects, for an agency to try having a go at one of it's customers.

seagull

Any agency will typically have a clause in their contract with the employer that they will pay compensation to the agency if they directly employ any staff provided by the agency.

BattleCorp

seagull wrote: »

Any agency will typically have a clause in their contract with the employer that they will pay compensation to the agency if they directly employ any staff provided by the agency.

That clause may well be there but there is still no obligation on the employee telling his current employer who his new employer will be.

seagull

BattleCorp wrote: »

That clause may well be there but there is still no obligation on the employee telling his current employer who his new employer will be.

No, but it's why it's uncommon for someone to move from a role through an agency to a role being directly employed without the agency being aware of what is happening.

Outcastangel

seagull wrote: »

Any agency will typically have a clause in their contract with the employer that they will pay compensation to the agency if they directly employ any staff provided by the agency.

I was told about this and the compensation is based on how many hours the employee worked. A colleague left recently and their end of service documents that were sent to his new employer stated he worked fulltime. He then showed HR his old rosters to show he never worked over 28 hours a week in the 9 months of employment. They were trying to pull a fast one, they apologised and said it was a clerical error.