Finally, the agreement must not go against public order. Agreements that are illegal, that give employers virtual monopolies over workers in this sector or workplace, or that wrongly deprive a worker of the choice to work elsewhere, cannot be applicable. 8. If the non-competition agreement is amended, should the parties enter into a new non-competition agreement and should the employer offer additional legal consideration to the worker signing the new contract? In this case, the Tribunal found that the Confederation was invalid and unenforceable because it would exclude the worker from any employment or other relationship with a company acting directly or indirectly in the employer`s affairs. The federal government would prohibit the worker from being employed by a company that also works in the same areas as the employer, whether or not it is a real competitor. In addition, the federal government would prevent the worker from holding any position in another company in the employer sector, and not just a role similar to the same position or position with the employer. The employee, who was a director, argued that the Confederation would even prevent him from working as a janitor in another company in the area. The court agreed and found that “… The Confederation would clearly prevent Dumrauf from playing any more plausible role with another player in the sector, no matter how far away it is from the actual competition with Medix…. Such a ban is unenforceable. The non-competition clause is not applicable because it would have prohibited the worker from working in any capacity for a company in the same company as the employer and would therefore have been an unacceptable restriction of competition in itself. Thus, the court granted the worker`s request to dismiss the employer`s complaint on the grounds that the federal state was broad enough to be inopportune and unenforceable on his face. The court also refused to “give blue” (edit) the agreement because the scope is so broad that it is “manifestly unfair”.

Defines “reflection” as either two years of employment or “another fair and reasonable consideration, which was negotiated specifically in exchange for Confederation, not to compete” (a clear reference to Fifield v.