While the elaboration of a restrictive pact enforceable in Georgia was once a delicate task, such a nuance should no longer be necessary to achieve a certain degree of implementation. The rigid “all or nothing” approach, which was the hallmark of application (and absence) in Georgia, has been replaced by the more reprehensive “Blue Pencil” standard, which allows a court to effectively rewrite an overly broad alliance in order to limit its scope of application. While an overly broad agreement is likely still enforced to some extent, the level of enforcement will be in the hands of a judge who will have the ability to significantly reduce the restriction and change it otherwise. However, despite a more flexible legal landscape, familiarity with how Georgian courts have previously interpreted these provisions and in-depth knowledge of the new law are essential to design a treaty maintained and not amended by a judge who has signed a controversial agreement. Competition bans are the most restrictive agreements on the protection of trade secrets. This document prevents a person from competing with his former employer by working for a competitor or by creating his own company in the same line as the company that creates the non-competition clause. Non-competition: Under previous legislation, a non-competition clause in terms of time, scope and territory had to comply at a reasonable level to be maintained. The new law amends these standards. Perhaps one of the most frequent fatal errors in the formulation of such clauses has been the over-largeness or lack of specificity in defining a restricted area. If a restricted area was not closely adapted to the area where the worker worked, did not define a particular area or was not defined in such a way that it could change over time, it could be decided as inapplicable, which would have the effect of disqualifying any debauchery prohibition clause in the same agreement.
Under the new law, employers now have more leeway to define a restricted area, including the ability to “assess” the worker`s future territory. Under the legislation, the phrase “the territory in which the worker is working at the time of dismissal” or a similar language is considered “sufficient as a description of geographical areas” as long as the worker “can reasonably determine the maximum reasonable extent of the limitation at the time of dismissal”. It is important that the new law limits genuine non-competition clauses after dismissal to four categories of employees: (1) salespeople; (2) key personnel; (3) certain professionals; or 4) manager, as these terms are defined in more detail in the articles of association. An agreement preventing any staff member who does not fall into one of the above categories from competing after termination shall not apply. Finally, the new law deals with the adequacy of the temporary period and stipulates that each period of two years or less is considered appropriate. The new law applies to three basic types of restrictive agreements: (1) non-competition; 2) non-advertising (customers and employees); and 3) confidentiality of confidential information. . . . .
Categorised in: Uncategorized
This post was written by wm_admin