Breach Of Competition Agreement, Plation, Resignation, Compensation, Rejection

Jilin signed a competition agreement with the company and agreed compensation.

After leaving, Jilin demanded that the company pay more than 35 yuan to be refused.

Recently, Miyun court heard the case. After leaving the company, he worked in a company of similar nature with the original company. Therefore, the court decided that the company did not need to pay a fee to a certain company.

。

Jilin went to a building material company limited in June 16, 2008 and served as the Chief Secretary of production management and Japanese plation.

The two sides signed a labor contract for four years.

In August 31, 2012, Jilin was formally appointed.

。

Jilin signed a competition restriction agreement with the company during its inauguration, and agreed: "because Party B's production management needs to get a lot of important information of Party A's drawings, design and research, operation instructions, technical information and so on.

Therefore, Party B shall not be employed by Party A in the same industry or related industry within two years after the termination of the contract. Party B shall not use this confidential information after the termination of the contract to engage in the business or provide it to the inaugural unit outside of Party A. according to the relevant laws on the restriction of competition, the time limit for the competition shall be two years from the date of departure of Party B.

Party A pays Party B's compensation for competition restriction on a monthly basis.

Each month's compensation for competition restriction shall be 80% of the average salary before tax 12 months before departure. The period of limitation of compensation for Party B's payment to Party B is two years (24 months).

In May 8, 2014, Jilin filed an application with Miyun Arbitration Commission to request a building material limited company to pay 325939 yuan in compensation for competition.

In August 5, 2014, the Miyun Arbitration Commission ruled that a building materials company limited to Kyrgyzstan to pay 224147 yuan in compensation for competition.

A building material company disagrees with the arbitral award and brings it to court.

。

Court trial.

The building materials company argued that Jilin had applied for a job at Yi Yi Ming company when he had not left office. After leaving office, he worked in the company of the Golden Dragon ark company similar to his company, which constituted a breach of contract and had no right to ask the company to pay compensation for the competition restriction.

According to the court's trial, Ji Mou was admitted to China University of Political Science and Law as a directional graduate student in June 2012.

The court of first instance held that the economic compensation for competition restriction is mainly for the compensation of workers' income reduction due to competition restrictions. Its function is to make up for the losses that workers may suffer because of the limited freedom of employment.

In the case, Jilin was accepted by China University of Political Science and Law in June 2012 as an ordinary full-time graduate student before leaving in August 31, 2012 and will graduate in July 2016.

Jilin's category is targeted employment.

In accordance with the relevant provisions of directional employment, Ji Mou can not sign a labor contract with any employer when studying for a master's degree.

As a result, the loss of Jilin from a building material company after its departure is caused by its voluntary selection for a master's degree, rather than by a competition restriction agreement signed by both sides.

To sum up, the court supported the request of a building material company to pay compensation for non competition compensation to Kyrgyzstan.

The court of appeal to the third intermediate people's Court of the city, the second instance court heard that Jilin worked with a building material limited company to terminate the labor relationship. In the two years of the agreement, the company contracted for the same business nature with a building material company, which constituted a violation of the competition restriction agreement.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.