Not sure about WA specifically but I’m under the idea that these types of non competes can be fairly hard to enforce if it even went to court.
I’d be more worried about what type of business would feel the need to put such a clause in and I’d start to wonder if this business is worth my time. They sound very controlling and I reckon they’d hold onto the fact they’d have a non compete over your head if you did try to leave at some stage. Sounds like a bunch of unnecessary drama to me and I’d avoid being at this place at all.
A business can not stop you from earning a living.
If they were to enforce the Non Compete, they would have to keep paying you after you left there.
It's just an attempt to bully you.
> If they were to enforce the Non Compete, they would have to keep paying you after you left there.
Do you have a source for that? I’ve never heard anything like that.
They can not limit your ability to earn an income.
So they must pay you an income. Or prove it's necessary. (They're not doing that with a hairdresser)
It's why CEOs have parachute payments often multiples of their income.
It's hard to find actual evidence because no lawyer would pursue a former employee for the employer, except in levels of employment far outside the scope of the average employee or contractor.
My source is an employment lawyer who told me they aren't enforceable when a former employer tried that shit on me.
I then went down the rabbithole of finding documentation to support that in 2019, so it's not at hand.
Seek has a decent summary, especially where a hairdresser is concerned.
https://www.seek.com.au/employer/hiring-advice/restraints-trade-non-compete-clauses-reasonable
Imagine making someone redundant and then trying to say they can't work elsewhere because they know too much valuable information critical to your business.
Nothing in that link supports an employer needing to pay an employee during a restraint period.
The fact that this occurs may be a factor in determining whether a restraint is “reasonable”, but it’s incorrect to suggest this is **necessary**.
Knew you were fishing.
That's why I said I don't have the specifics on hand 5 years later.
I only provided that link in the hopes you were actually being genuine.
Not trying to Achtsually me
Fishing? You said a statement as a definitive fact of the law, I asked you to back it up, and you tried to walk back your prior statement and avoid the question lol.
Seriously, that’s the problem with this sub. People are just regurgitating second hand advice they’ve heard, or their own experiences, as definitive statements. Lay people come here for actual advice.
Then do what others on here do, and say “I think…” or “I had a similar situation like this…”
But anyone on this sub who searches for restraint of trade clauses, and sees your top comment, will mistakenly believe that’s correct.
Do you have any evidence to support it being enforced?
It’s fairly common knowledge that a contract cannot be one sided and legal, and non-competes are only enforceable in very few areas.
My theory on the non compete in my contract is that my employer can afford to keep it in the courts longer than I can afford to stay solvent. Can't claim costs if you can't afford to get to the finish line.
They won't though.
An initial business consult runs 5-10k
I got an email threatening me from a lawyer.
I broke their budget just responding with points of clarification individually so the lawyer would bill them $300 or so each time they responded.
Litigation is insanely expensive.
A good general concept in contract law is you can’t supersede common or statutory law using a contract. If a contract term is illegal or conflicting with laws it is null and void.
E.g “employee agrees to earn $10 per hour after first 40hours” is conflicting with the award rates and therefore not enforceable even if you sign the contract.
Edit: and statutory law
If you haven't signed a new contract stating your acceptance of a reasonable non compete clause then you're fine.
Also a hair dressers isn't the type of business where a non-compete is reasonable. They are there to protect businesses that have a niche market, example being my business. When I bought it, this business was the only one in my greater region doing this type of work. If the guy I bought it from then immediately started shop again and stealing all the clients back then I'd just bought a business for nothing.
A hair dresser isn't a niche role as there is a different shop on every corner and they would need to show a judge that their profits were substantially damaged by you breaking the contract.
lol no. They are bullshit clauses for most industries and can only be enforced in the Supreme Court which most people would not bother with even if they were legal.
Non-competes can't stop you from earning a living in your field of work, so no, they're telling you stories.
It's likely to be entirely (EDIT) unenforceable, unless you do something like set up a competing salon next-door.
And even then they would have to take the matter through court.
So no, nothing to worry about.
[Restraints of trade: non-compete clauses, are they reasonable?](https://www.seek.com.au/employer/hiring-advice/restraints-trade-non-compete-clauses-reasonable)
At the end of the day, said business would have to prove their losses which they really couldn’t do if you weren’t trading secrets and stealing customers.
They would have to initiate proceedings, that costs them money, more losses. These people aren’t really that bright are they.
Even if you sign they can’t stop you from doing your job else where.
What do you mean they 'added' it?
Your contract with them is the contract you agreed upon when you started, or the award you're covered by. Don't sign anything new and if they fire you file an unfair dismissal.
If you've already singed then perhaps speak to fair work. Narrowly defined non-complete clauses are legal in WA but I'm not sure if 6 months/20km is considered 'narrow'
Some further info about non-competes in WA/Perth
https://www.employmentlawyersperthwide.com.au/blog/the-employers-and-employees-guide-to-enforcing-non-compete-agreements-in-perth/
Did you agree to the non compete? Eg sign a contact? If not, find another head dresser, make a sign, stick to your car window and park out the front of hairdressersc let people know you’ve left due to unreasonable work conditions, and you can be found at x hair dresser.
The non compete probably isn’t enforceable, but if a boss is like that then leave regardless.
The way a small business should keep it’s good staff is thought positive work conditions and pay, not legal threats. So I would just leave, unless they are willing to accept your condition that on the end of employment they are required to pay you for six months, but still just leave.
NAL but my bro was put through a similar threat, his specialised field meant there was only 3 companies he could work for in his state.
He was advised to ignore them and basically unless youre on $100ks it's not enforcable esp on a hair dresser wage.
Literally I'd be buying google ads by geolocation just to piss them off at this point
Also as far as fair work is concerned emp contract terms can't be negative in your favour so they would need to offer something like a pay rise or compensation for 6 months wages like someone else mentioned
> ADDED: Would I have a leg on to not sign the variation to contract and say I’m happy with the current one I have?
Been there, done that.
Me and a few other holdouts get pulled into meetings with general manager and HR about it. I say there's no reason for me to sign, unless they want to improve my contract? Otherwise why would I? You don't sign contracts that have something that's negative for you and no positives, that's just common sense. General manager gets combative saying it's not about money it's about loyalty. I get combative and don't back down. GM ends the meeting saying he doesn't want to argue with me.
Keep getting pressured, line manager admits they can't make me sign but if I don't I'll never be promoted or given any raises ever.
Talk to a lawyer, funnily enough lawyer says I'm not the first from this company to see him about this, says non-competes aren't legal (at least, in this context) and to take them to court, can't afford that and don't want the stress of a combative workplace.
The other holdouts give up and sign but I'm about to send an email to the owners EA about how messed up this all is and how I won't be signing out of principle.
Line manager tells me if I send the email my relationship with the company is over, but sign and he'll get me the raise I wanted.
Sign, owners happy, get the raise. In hindsight, probably the right decision since finding another job would have been a real pain at that stage of my career, I'm not good with conflict at all, and if it's truly unenforceable then I guess it doesn't matter. Still left a bad taste in my mouth though, and if it happened today now that I've progressed in my career I'd refuse to sign and start looking for other jobs immediately.
NAL but non compete are theoretically enforceable in WA. I wouldn't sign it with one in there tbh.
It just suggests to me a kind of bad faith or perhaps AI written effort has gone into it.
Though a business would need to demonstrate a reason for needing a non compete, such as to protect trade secrets or a client base. But supposedly that's pretty hard to do unless you're in a high paid or upper managerial position.
But you're by no means required to sign a new contract if a new one is being pushed onto you.
From my limited understanding there needs to be a reason and a compensation attached to it.
A non-solicitation clause might be appropriate, but that's just "Don't actively steal our customers" even that might be a bit of a stretch for a hairdresser considering some customers will move with the hairdresser and not the company.
A lot of customers will follow the hairdresser. We followed our hairdresser through 3 different businesses. Didn't stop any of them from being profitable.
That is my understanding too. If you are on award wages, you need to be getting something extra for the additional burden of the non-compete restriction.
Hairdressing is a field where customers are known to follow when a hairdresser moves to another salon so it's not unusual for employers to try to stop that happening.
Of course it can work both ways. Employees who know they can bring customers with them can use that when negotiating a new job.
If you want to spice up the conversation a little you can tell them that you’re “seeking further advice” and if they ask any follow up questions on that day that you were advised not to speak further on the matter”. You don’t need to lie and tell them that you’re talking to a lawyer, your ‘advice’ can come from anywhere really.
The only thing that you should agree to is to not actively solicit their clients. That doesn’t mean that you can’t tell them where you’re going, and it doesn’t mean you can’t service them. You just can’t solicit or entice them to follow you.
Most non competes and non solicitation clauses are garbage.
Went through something like this for my partner recently.
The Salon would need to ask you to sign the new agreement for them to even have a small chance of enforcing it
I imagine the best they would be able to enforce if you did sign, is prevent you from opening a new salon nearby
Welcome to r/AusLegal. Please read our [rules](http://reddit.com/r/AusLegal/about/rules) before commenting. Please remember:
1. Per rule 4, this subreddit is not a replacement for real legal advice. You should independently seek legal advice from a real, qualified practitioner. This sub cannot recommend specific lawyers.
2. A non-exhaustive list of free legal services around Australia can be found [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusLegal/wiki/freelegalservices/).
3. Links to the each state and territory's respective Law Society are on the sidebar: you can use these links to find a lawyer in your area.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AusLegal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Contracts require due consideration.
Typically a contract that doesnt have due consideration is not considered enforceable.
Your boss gets: A captive work force
You get: Literally nothing
You wont see this enforced, and basically you just have to not tell your boss where you're going anyway.
Not sure about WA specifically but I’m under the idea that these types of non competes can be fairly hard to enforce if it even went to court. I’d be more worried about what type of business would feel the need to put such a clause in and I’d start to wonder if this business is worth my time. They sound very controlling and I reckon they’d hold onto the fact they’d have a non compete over your head if you did try to leave at some stage. Sounds like a bunch of unnecessary drama to me and I’d avoid being at this place at all.
A business can not stop you from earning a living. If they were to enforce the Non Compete, they would have to keep paying you after you left there. It's just an attempt to bully you.
> If they were to enforce the Non Compete, they would have to keep paying you after you left there. Do you have a source for that? I’ve never heard anything like that.
They can not limit your ability to earn an income. So they must pay you an income. Or prove it's necessary. (They're not doing that with a hairdresser) It's why CEOs have parachute payments often multiples of their income. It's hard to find actual evidence because no lawyer would pursue a former employee for the employer, except in levels of employment far outside the scope of the average employee or contractor. My source is an employment lawyer who told me they aren't enforceable when a former employer tried that shit on me. I then went down the rabbithole of finding documentation to support that in 2019, so it's not at hand. Seek has a decent summary, especially where a hairdresser is concerned. https://www.seek.com.au/employer/hiring-advice/restraints-trade-non-compete-clauses-reasonable Imagine making someone redundant and then trying to say they can't work elsewhere because they know too much valuable information critical to your business.
Nothing in that link supports an employer needing to pay an employee during a restraint period. The fact that this occurs may be a factor in determining whether a restraint is “reasonable”, but it’s incorrect to suggest this is **necessary**.
Knew you were fishing. That's why I said I don't have the specifics on hand 5 years later. I only provided that link in the hopes you were actually being genuine. Not trying to Achtsually me
Fishing? You said a statement as a definitive fact of the law, I asked you to back it up, and you tried to walk back your prior statement and avoid the question lol. Seriously, that’s the problem with this sub. People are just regurgitating second hand advice they’ve heard, or their own experiences, as definitive statements. Lay people come here for actual advice.
This is actual advice. From someone who's been through it. If they want legal advice, they can pay a lawyer who will give them the exact same advice.
Then do what others on here do, and say “I think…” or “I had a similar situation like this…” But anyone on this sub who searches for restraint of trade clauses, and sees your top comment, will mistakenly believe that’s correct.
Do you have any evidence to support it being enforced? It’s fairly common knowledge that a contract cannot be one sided and legal, and non-competes are only enforceable in very few areas.
My theory on the non compete in my contract is that my employer can afford to keep it in the courts longer than I can afford to stay solvent. Can't claim costs if you can't afford to get to the finish line.
They won't though. An initial business consult runs 5-10k I got an email threatening me from a lawyer. I broke their budget just responding with points of clarification individually so the lawyer would bill them $300 or so each time they responded. Litigation is insanely expensive.
A good general concept in contract law is you can’t supersede common or statutory law using a contract. If a contract term is illegal or conflicting with laws it is null and void. E.g “employee agrees to earn $10 per hour after first 40hours” is conflicting with the award rates and therefore not enforceable even if you sign the contract. Edit: and statutory law
If you haven't signed a new contract stating your acceptance of a reasonable non compete clause then you're fine. Also a hair dressers isn't the type of business where a non-compete is reasonable. They are there to protect businesses that have a niche market, example being my business. When I bought it, this business was the only one in my greater region doing this type of work. If the guy I bought it from then immediately started shop again and stealing all the clients back then I'd just bought a business for nothing. A hair dresser isn't a niche role as there is a different shop on every corner and they would need to show a judge that their profits were substantially damaged by you breaking the contract.
lol no. They are bullshit clauses for most industries and can only be enforced in the Supreme Court which most people would not bother with even if they were legal.
Exactly this 🙏🏼
Added a clause after 6 years?
Yeah they’ve done it for all the staff….
Don’t sign, they can’t add things to a old document.
Non-competes can't stop you from earning a living in your field of work, so no, they're telling you stories. It's likely to be entirely (EDIT) unenforceable, unless you do something like set up a competing salon next-door. And even then they would have to take the matter through court. So no, nothing to worry about. [Restraints of trade: non-compete clauses, are they reasonable?](https://www.seek.com.au/employer/hiring-advice/restraints-trade-non-compete-clauses-reasonable)
*entirely unenforceable
Thank you.
At the end of the day, said business would have to prove their losses which they really couldn’t do if you weren’t trading secrets and stealing customers. They would have to initiate proceedings, that costs them money, more losses. These people aren’t really that bright are they. Even if you sign they can’t stop you from doing your job else where.
What do you mean they 'added' it? Your contract with them is the contract you agreed upon when you started, or the award you're covered by. Don't sign anything new and if they fire you file an unfair dismissal. If you've already singed then perhaps speak to fair work. Narrowly defined non-complete clauses are legal in WA but I'm not sure if 6 months/20km is considered 'narrow' Some further info about non-competes in WA/Perth https://www.employmentlawyersperthwide.com.au/blog/the-employers-and-employees-guide-to-enforcing-non-compete-agreements-in-perth/
Did you agree to the non compete? Eg sign a contact? If not, find another head dresser, make a sign, stick to your car window and park out the front of hairdressersc let people know you’ve left due to unreasonable work conditions, and you can be found at x hair dresser. The non compete probably isn’t enforceable, but if a boss is like that then leave regardless. The way a small business should keep it’s good staff is thought positive work conditions and pay, not legal threats. So I would just leave, unless they are willing to accept your condition that on the end of employment they are required to pay you for six months, but still just leave.
NAL but my bro was put through a similar threat, his specialised field meant there was only 3 companies he could work for in his state. He was advised to ignore them and basically unless youre on $100ks it's not enforcable esp on a hair dresser wage. Literally I'd be buying google ads by geolocation just to piss them off at this point
Also as far as fair work is concerned emp contract terms can't be negative in your favour so they would need to offer something like a pay rise or compensation for 6 months wages like someone else mentioned
> ADDED: Would I have a leg on to not sign the variation to contract and say I’m happy with the current one I have? Been there, done that. Me and a few other holdouts get pulled into meetings with general manager and HR about it. I say there's no reason for me to sign, unless they want to improve my contract? Otherwise why would I? You don't sign contracts that have something that's negative for you and no positives, that's just common sense. General manager gets combative saying it's not about money it's about loyalty. I get combative and don't back down. GM ends the meeting saying he doesn't want to argue with me. Keep getting pressured, line manager admits they can't make me sign but if I don't I'll never be promoted or given any raises ever. Talk to a lawyer, funnily enough lawyer says I'm not the first from this company to see him about this, says non-competes aren't legal (at least, in this context) and to take them to court, can't afford that and don't want the stress of a combative workplace. The other holdouts give up and sign but I'm about to send an email to the owners EA about how messed up this all is and how I won't be signing out of principle. Line manager tells me if I send the email my relationship with the company is over, but sign and he'll get me the raise I wanted. Sign, owners happy, get the raise. In hindsight, probably the right decision since finding another job would have been a real pain at that stage of my career, I'm not good with conflict at all, and if it's truly unenforceable then I guess it doesn't matter. Still left a bad taste in my mouth though, and if it happened today now that I've progressed in my career I'd refuse to sign and start looking for other jobs immediately.
NAL but non compete are theoretically enforceable in WA. I wouldn't sign it with one in there tbh. It just suggests to me a kind of bad faith or perhaps AI written effort has gone into it. Though a business would need to demonstrate a reason for needing a non compete, such as to protect trade secrets or a client base. But supposedly that's pretty hard to do unless you're in a high paid or upper managerial position. But you're by no means required to sign a new contract if a new one is being pushed onto you.
From my limited understanding there needs to be a reason and a compensation attached to it. A non-solicitation clause might be appropriate, but that's just "Don't actively steal our customers" even that might be a bit of a stretch for a hairdresser considering some customers will move with the hairdresser and not the company.
A lot of customers will follow the hairdresser. We followed our hairdresser through 3 different businesses. Didn't stop any of them from being profitable.
That is my understanding too. If you are on award wages, you need to be getting something extra for the additional burden of the non-compete restriction. Hairdressing is a field where customers are known to follow when a hairdresser moves to another salon so it's not unusual for employers to try to stop that happening. Of course it can work both ways. Employees who know they can bring customers with them can use that when negotiating a new job.
If you want to spice up the conversation a little you can tell them that you’re “seeking further advice” and if they ask any follow up questions on that day that you were advised not to speak further on the matter”. You don’t need to lie and tell them that you’re talking to a lawyer, your ‘advice’ can come from anywhere really. The only thing that you should agree to is to not actively solicit their clients. That doesn’t mean that you can’t tell them where you’re going, and it doesn’t mean you can’t service them. You just can’t solicit or entice them to follow you. Most non competes and non solicitation clauses are garbage. Went through something like this for my partner recently.
The Salon would need to ask you to sign the new agreement for them to even have a small chance of enforcing it I imagine the best they would be able to enforce if you did sign, is prevent you from opening a new salon nearby
This was discussed on RN the other week. Listen to this for some general advice https://abclisten.page.link/FYsNQzePexLHsbGx6
Welcome to r/AusLegal. Please read our [rules](http://reddit.com/r/AusLegal/about/rules) before commenting. Please remember: 1. Per rule 4, this subreddit is not a replacement for real legal advice. You should independently seek legal advice from a real, qualified practitioner. This sub cannot recommend specific lawyers. 2. A non-exhaustive list of free legal services around Australia can be found [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusLegal/wiki/freelegalservices/). 3. Links to the each state and territory's respective Law Society are on the sidebar: you can use these links to find a lawyer in your area. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AusLegal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lmfao they literally cannot do that and stop you earning a living or they are paying you for the ‘non compete’
Contracts require due consideration. Typically a contract that doesnt have due consideration is not considered enforceable. Your boss gets: A captive work force You get: Literally nothing You wont see this enforced, and basically you just have to not tell your boss where you're going anyway.