We understand that employers want to protect their intellectual property – an important reason to have employee contracts. But the addition of this clause seems a bit much. The Robert Half International personnel agency requires employees to sign an employment contract that states that Robert Half is not a third party or is responsible for agreements between clients and robert half direct candidates, whether or not Robert Half receives a fee from Robert Half Direct Customer as part of the transaction. Applicants do not pay a fee to Robert Half or Robert Half Direct Customer. `The term `date of dismissal` is defined in the agreement as the date on which the worker`s employment relationship in rhi undertakings is terminated either by the employer or by the worker.` (Agreement, 7.) It is possible that Buoncontri is currently working with candidates who were RHI candidates in the Boston office, although they are not candidates from the Officeteam Healthcare Group. (See Buoncontri Affidavit, 18, 19. If these candidates came to PSG independently of Buoncontri and he did not use confidential information from RHIs in collaboration with them, this would not be contrary to the agreement. However, if Buoncontri has used confidential information about the identity, job requirements, etc. of those candidates he learned during his employment at RHI, to bring them to PSG, RHI is entitled to an injunction against such use. As the saying went, the most important capital of a company is its people. This maxim applies with additional strength in the personnel sector, where people are literally their business.
This may explain why Robert Half, a leading personnel company, uses an unusually aggressive contract clause to annoy deceased employees. A recent Federal Court decision rejected the unfair contract term, but the Court`s decision highlights the regulatory challenges in maintaining employee mobility. 1. Defendant Matthew Buoncontri is provisionally detained until the 30th having the right to solicit, directly or indirectly, on 1 October 2003 the trade or sponsorship of a person, business, undertaking, undertaking or organisation having a “client” (as defined in the defendant`s employment contract) from the Boston office of the applicant RHI (a) with whom the defendant has been in contact during the last twelve months of his employment with RHI; (b) which the defendant knows has been a “client” of RHI for part of the last twelve months of the defendant`s employment. Through this action, Robert Half International, Inc. (RHI) is suing former RHI employee Matthew Buoncontri, a defendant, of various competition and confidentiality provisions of an employment contract. At present, the court has received an application for an injunction from RHI against Buoncontri. For the reasons set out below, the application is partially accepted and partially rejected. However, in this case, RHI has not demonstrated in these notes that the balance between the damage suffered here – the alleged damage resulting from the non-application of the non-competition clause of the agreement – in relation to the damage suffered by Buoncontri if the non-competition clause is imposed and Buoncontri prevents working for PSG, weighs in its favour. See Packaging Indus. Group, Inc. v.
Cheney, top, 380 mass. at 617, 620-21. See also Speechworks Internat`l, Inc. v. Cote, Suffolk Superior Court CA No. 02-4411 BLS (Memorandum and Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 11 October 2002, Slip op. at 7-8). Putting aside the issue of “candidates” – it is discussed below – there is no evidence that Buoncontri has disclosed or leaked to PSG confidential information about RHI`s customers, accounts, marketing plans or even information about other RHI business practices. .