Legal Question For Lawyers

[E4 No More]

Company A is a large IT vendor based out of Texas with an office in Nashville and has a business agreement with company B, (who is a specialized IT vendor), to sell company B's product for them. Part of that agreement is that Company B is not allowed to hire Company A's employees into company B. This is not to be construed as simply constraining company B from the solicitation of company A's employees, but rather is even if the employee applies for a publicly announced position for company B they cannot hire the employee regardless of their qualifications for the position. This agreement is made without the consent of company A's employees.

 

Is this a legal arrangement? It seems to me to be a conspiracy to limit the professional and financial future of company A's employees.

[Ted S.]

Not a lawyer......but....

 

It doesn't seem odd for a B2B contract to have some kind of agreement to forbid talent fishing, as well as including forbidding employing applicants from the other company for a set period of time after severing relations from that company.

 

Edit: Also, I don't think it's a conspiracy. If one of the two companies doing business together under a contract were so much better than the other company, the crappy company would potentially lose their best employees to the good company. It would be beneficial for the crappy company to engage in business with the better company (exposing their employees to better opportunities) without some kind of safeguard against losing employees.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Ted S.

[TGO David]

IANAL, but...

 

Two things generally affect people in these cases.  One is a non-compete agreement.  If you did not sign one, you are not bound by anything other than the second thing.  The second thing being a "gentlemen's agreement" between those two companies not to actively poach employees from one another.

 

Typically the company that is the customer is the one that benefits the most in these arrangements because the customer generally gets what the customer wants.  My employer has this sort of agreement with many of our vendors/suppliers wherein they will not actively poach us for hire into their own organizations, however we have been known (on occasion) to poach their people.  The vendor allowed it because it was good for business.

 

In our case, provisions have been made in the past on case-by-case basis to allow a talented person to leave our employ and take a job with one of our vendors/suppliers.  Those cases were all initiated by the employee and blessed by the company so that the vendor felt at ease to do it in those specific cases.

 

So, if you're being held somewhere by the second thing... the best approach may be to be entirely transparent with your employer and explain what you want to do, why you want to do it, and build your case with anything that might make it advantageous to them to lower the drawbridge and allow you to cross over.  Most vendors won't touch this scenario with a 10-foot pole unless you already have the blessing of your employer.  Hiring you isn't worth the loss of a lucrative account, generally speaking.

[DaveTN]

This agreement is made without the consent of company A's employees.

No lawyer either, but here’s a free bump.
I would guess the situation would depend on the accuracy of that statement, together with whether or not both companies agreed at the time of the contract.

[E4 No More]

Actively poaching I can understand. That's a given. Making an agreement to not hire someone who applies to a publicly posted position who is not part of the agreement I don't understand. I understand why; just not the legality of it.

[E4 No More]

When you work for a huge company that has numerous partners and resellers, this limits your career greatly - particularly when your own company wants to limit your internal movement as well.