Blog Layout

Conflict of Interest - Restrictive Covenants


conflict of interest restrictive covenants

Can an employee be dismissed for starting another business?


An employee may be dismissed for starting a new business if the contract of employment with the existing employer specifically states that during the period employment, the employee will devote the whole of their time and attention to the business of the company and/or that they will not engage in any other activity which is likely to prejudice their ability to serve the company.


Conflict of interest


In A Restaurant Assistant Manager v A Restaurant (ADJ-00013091), the employee raised a complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, after he was dismissed, apparently due to him exploring the option of opening a competing business.


His contract of employment stated:


“During the period of this contract, you will devote the whole of your time and attention to the business of the company and you undertake that during the period of this contract you will not engage in any other activity which is likely to prejudice your ability to serve the company, nor will you engage in any business activity which may cause a conflict of interest with the business of the company.”


He was working for an Indian restaurant and their was some evidence that he was exploring the option of setting-up his own, nearby.


Dismissal due to conflict of interest


Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 provides that:


“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal, unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”


The burden of proof rests with the respondent to establish the substantial grounds justifying the dismissal of the complainant in this case. The respondent said that the complainant was dismissed because he was in negotiations to open an Indian restaurant that would be in competition with his own business. He considered this to be a breach of trust and a contravention of the complainant’s contract of employment which required him to not to “…engage in any business activity which may cause a conflict of interest with the business of the company.”


The questions to be decided are: was it reasonable for the respondent to dismiss the complainant and was the process that ended with his dismissal a fair process?


Conflict of interest, competing business and the law


The issue of a conflict of interest and an employee’s desire to set up their own business is explored at chapter 16.89 of “Redmond on Dismissal Law” by Desmond Ryan, (Bloomsbury, 2017).


A number of precedents are cited where the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has concluded that even where a restrictive clause is included in an employee’s contract, seeking to prevent them from setting up in business similar to their employer, “an employee cannot be dismissed for nurturing this intention.”


The author refers to the Employment Appeals Tribunal case of McDermott v Kemek Limited / Irish Industrial Explosives Limited, [1996] ELR 233 where the “general principles” relating to employees in these circumstances were set out:


  1. It is perfectly legitimate for an employee to aspire to set up in business on his own account.
  2. Such a person would consider it normal to work in the industry with which he was familiar. It would be contrary to public policy to prevent someone from setting up in competition with his employer.
  3. However, an employee’s duty of fidelity continues so long as he remains in employment. There may be a point at which preparations to set up a new business might be incompatible with continuing to serve the existing employer.
  4. If an employer believes that an employee’s actions in pursuit of his ambition have so become incompatible, he owes the same duty not to dismiss unfairly as he would in any other type of case.


Decision


In this case, the Adjudication Officer found that the actions of the employee, in exploring the possibility of setting-up his own business, was not a breach of his contract of employment and so awarded the employee €3,168, equivalent to 12 weeks’ pay.


Further Information


For further information, please contact the author of this article, Barry Crushell.

 

Share

Compensation for workplace stress & anxiety
by RG343171 11 Mar, 2024
Psychological damage is difficult to measure and quantify, making it difficult for assessors to determine its impact. The Personal Injuries Guidelines were established by the Judicial Council in 2021 under the Judicial Council Act 2019 to identify appropriate levels of damages for different forms of personal injuries. The guidelines aim to enhance understanding of the evaluation and allocation of compensation for personal injuries to achieve more uniformity in awards.
How much compensation for stress at work?
by RG343171 11 Mar, 2024
In this article, we examine the circumstances that give rise to a personal injuries claim for the stress and anxiety caused by a toxic working environment.
13 Feb, 2024
The case of Electricity Supply Board -v- Kieran Sharkey [2024] IEHC 65 examines whether an employee has a right to silence in the context of workplace investigations. The Electricity Supply Board (ESB) (the Plaintiff) brought a case against Mr Sharkey (the Defendant) alleging that his failure to answer certain questions, in the context of a workplace investigations that was also subject to parallel criminal proceedings, amounted to a repudiation of his contract of employment or, in the alternative, that the ESB was entitled to treat his contract of employment as having been terminated by him.
Section 3 of the Immigration Act, 1999
26 Jan, 2024
The Form 3 is used when an individual wants to make a representation to the Minister for Justice and Equality pursuant to Section 3 of the Immigration Act, 1999. It is an appeal to a decision of the Minister for Justice in respect of an immigration application.
Determining an Employer
03 Jan, 2024
The case of Amanda Craddock v Head–Hunt International Limited (ADJ00036831) examines the circumstances under which a redundancy payment would ordinarily be payable to an agency worker.
Claims before the WRC
18 Dec, 2023
In this article, we consider what will be considered frivolous or vexatious, by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), when a complaint is presented to them we do so by examining several claims initiated by Mr. Leon O’Connor against various companies.
Show More
Share by: