|
Werp Jou Pêrels Voor Die Swyne
(Or Failing To Protect Your Client Base Against Exploitation By Employees)
In the service industry a company’s client base is probably its most precious possession and all too often it is taken for granted by management that the loyalty of those clients lies with the company, when the truth of the matter is that in many instances a more real relationship develops over time between the clients and those individuals within the company that deals with them on a regular basis.
Die Arbeidshof van Suid-Afrika [in die gekombineerde sake van Absa Insurance and Financial Advisors v Jonker and Another; en Absa Insurance and Financial Advisors v Jonker and Another (Saak nommers C741/14, C742/17)] moes onlangs beslis of daardie versekeringsmakelaar twee van sy voormalige werknemers (wie met mekaar getroud was) daarvan kon weerhou om na beëindiging van hul diens by die instansie, in die diens te tree van ‘n mededinger, al was daar geen skriftelike handelsbeperking vervat in die hul dienskontrakte nie.
The customers of the applicant which the two respondents were serving during their employ were mostly residing in and around the town of Robertson where the respondents lived and worked during and after their employment with the applicant. After their resignation and retirement, the previous employer instructed them to return equipment such as computers and software to the company as required in their employment agreements.
Die makelaars het nadat die respondente hul diens verlaat het, redelik spoedeisend werk daarvan gemaak om alle bestaande kliënte te kontak, maar toe gevind dat die meeste van daardie kliënte reeds nuwe makelaar-aanstellings onderteken het met die maatskappy by wie die egpaar hulle aangesluit het, of binnekort sou aansluit. Om hul verlies te probeer beperk bring die makelaars ‘n aansoek op ‘n dringende basis om te verhoed dat die onheiligheid kan voortgaan.
Given the absence of specific restraint of trade provisions the court had to decide whether an employer can rely on the confidentiality (and protection of proprietary interests) provisions in employment agreements to prevent former employees from enticing its former contacts clients and/or ensuring that confidential information is not used to gain a competitive advantage. The applicant argued that a restraint of trade is not the only way for an employer to protect itself against the unfair use of a competitor's fruit and labour and the misuse of confidential information to advance the respondent’s business interests and activities at the expense of the applicant.
Die Arbeidshof het bevind dat die applikant nie 'n duidelike reg tot enige buitengewone remedie kon bewys nie en dat 'n interdik te drasties in die omstandighede sou wees. Daar was byvoorbeeld geen bewys voor die hof dat die voormalige werknemers vertroulike inligting van die applikant gebruik het nie of dat hul aktief inligting, wat eksklusief die eiendom van die applikant is, aan hul nuwe werknemer geopenbaar het nie. Die blote feit dat die voormalige werknemers deur 'n mededinger in diens geneem was, selfs met die kennis van die applikant se kliënte se vertroulike inligting, het nie tot onregmatige mededinging gelei nie. Die hof bevind dat die applikant ook nie die reg het om te verhoed dat sy voormalige kliënte hul eie keuses uitoefen in die aanstelling van makelaars nie, al sou die voormalige werknemers nou in diens van die mededinger staan. As gevolg hiervan is die aansoek van die hand gewys.
In light of the Court’s finding, it is important for all businesses that rely on the sanctity of trade secrets, trade connections and confidential information, to protect their proprietary interests adequately. If there is therefore any chance risk that an employee could use such information to advance either their own interests or those of another that the employer should include both a restraint of trade and confidentiality provisions in their employment agreements to avoid an outcome as unsatisfactorily as in the above instance.
Groete,
Hennie & Eberhard
|
|
|
