Employee engagement is a real concern for employers.
While it is probably not a new concept, there is now a label for employee disengagement and apathy known as ‘quietly quitting.’
This is a state where employees do the job they are employed to do with no problems or concerns however, they are emotionally detached from any ambitions for the company, its success, growth or development. They simply ‘clock in’ and ‘clock out.’
You might wonder, what’s wrong with that? They’re doing the job and not causing any issues so why is this a problem?
Perhaps there isn’t, if as an employer, you have no sustainability goals for the company, do not wish to attract stakeholder investment, develop your brand or strive for larger market share.
With the digital age and an exponential increase in competition for market share, it is now more important than ever to have ‘buy in’ from employees so that they are committed to the aspirations and objectives of the company , wanting to want to be there and participate in its growth and success.
There is nothing to stop employees quietly quitting. As they would not be underperforming or misbehaving there would be little cause for HR intervention.
However, the quiet quitters pose a significant risk to employers by their failure to engage and participate in meeting the long-term goals of the business. Their stagnancy results in a lack of creative input, foresight and innovation.
It can also lead to low team morale where their disinterest waterfalls into the attitudes and behaviours of their teams perhaps even seeing enthusiastic individuals leave and move on to somewhere else.
Employers who want their employees to want to be there may give some consideration to the following:
Companies frequently spend thousands of pounds in developing brand image and in marketing their products and services. However, where there is a culture of quiet quitting inherent in the spine of the company, such investment is futile if your employees, who are the engine of the company, feel uninspired and unenthused to take relevant action towards achieving the company’s ambitions.
To discuss any of the points raised in this article, please contact Dipti Shah or fill in the form below.
Elon Musk, the embattled CEO of Twitter is threatening to sue Meta, headed by Mark Zukerberg. Mr Musk alleges that Meta used Twitter’s trade secrets and intellectual property (IP) to build Threads as well as hiring dozens of ex-Twitter employees.
A letter sent by Alex Spiro, an outside lawyer for Mr Musk, alleges that Meta engaged in “systematic, wilful, and unlawful misappropriation of Twitter’s trade secrets and other intellectual property.”
We need to emphasise that this article discusses the law in England and Wales. American law is quite different, and it is beyond the scope (and perhaps usefulness) of this piece. In England and Wales, an employer can attempt to protect confidential information and trade secrets by having employees sign a restrictive covenant. They can also include a confidentiality clause within the company’s employment contracts.
A restrictive covenant is a term in an employment contract that can restrict a former employee’s conduct after they have left your business. There are several types of restrictive covenants, including non-compete, non-solicitation, non-dealing, and non-poaching covenants.
If a claim to enforce a restrictive covenant is brought before the Court, it must have regard to the doctrine of `restraint of trade.’ This principle states that people should be free to follow their trade and use their skills without undue interference.
Any contractual term restricting an employee’s activities after termination is void for being in restraint of trade and contrary to public policy, unless the employer can show that:
The Court applies the following key principles in assessing and enforcing post-termination restrictive covenants:
Essentially, the Courts will not uphold a restrictive covenant that merely prevents an employee from accepting a position with a competitor or opening their own business in competition with their former employer. For it to be enforceable, there must be an advantage or asset that the employer aims to protect, for example, a client list, key staff members, or a particular innovation that makes their product or service unique.
An employment contract can include the protection of confidential information during and after employment. A restrictive covenant can include restrictions on using confidential information and trade secrets after the employment has ended.
Such clauses can also be incorporated into commercial agreements with third parties that require access to information to undertake work assigned to them.
In addition to express clauses, all employment contracts contain an implied term that the employee will serve their employer with good faith and fidelity whilst in employment. This means whilst in employment, employees will not under an implied duty of good faith and fidelity, disclose such information to third parties or use it for their own gain.
Whether Elon Musk will actually launch a legal claim against Meta is debatable. He has in the past threatened legal action but not pursued further action. It would be surprising if Mr Zuckerberg’s extensive legal team had not run a risk assessment for potential lawsuits before employing ex-Twitter staff. They will have closely scrutinised Twitter employee’s employment contracts to assess the nature and extent of the confidentiality clauses and restrictive covenants and the extent to which any terms could be successfully enforced.
It may be worth mentioning that there has been a Government consultation regarding introducing a three month statutory limit on the length of non-compete clauses. As at the time of writing, there has been no update to the consultation findings.
In conclusion, the best way to protect your organisation’s confidential information and trade secrets during and after an employee has left your employment, is to have carefully drafted restrictive covenants in your employment contracts that will be enforceable in a court of law and/or review your existing terms to ensure you are not left exposed when a key employee leaves your company.
To find out how we can advise you on all matters relating to employment and commercial law, please complete the form below.
UK Visa applications fees are becoming increasingly costly; the visa fees for a Skilled Worker visa for five years can exceed £12,000 for the main applicant. The importance of hiring skilled workers to assist in an entity’s growth and success versus the upfront cost of doing so creates a nexus.
A key decision for employers is consideration of the financial level of support provided to current or prospective employees hired under a skilled worker sponsorship licence.
For most UK work related visa application, Government fees constitute the majority of the total costs, usually these fees will exceed professional legal fees. Government fees include the visa application fee, the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS), the Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) fee, and the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC). Other optional fees include priority services fees to expedite a visa application.
Whilst many employers will have a well-established policy in place to guide them, many employers do not. The extent of support that an employer can offer to provide can range from, the employee covering all of the fees (that they are legally required to pay) to employers paying for all of the fees associated with the visa application.
If an employer intends on inserting a clawback/repayment clause into their contract, they will need to consider the following relevant points:
To avoid any attack on the enforceability of a repayment clause, the contractual term must be proportionate. A ‘sliding scale’ based upon a greater reimbursement if an employer leaves sooner rather than later will be an important element to increase the prospects of the term of the contract being enforceable.
Hiring highly skilled individuals to grow or enhance your business is a primary aim when employing an individual from abroad. The initial outlay in visa application costs can be daunting. However, in our experience clients with a well-prepared policy or agreement in place, should the intended hire fail to commence work or leaves prematurely mitigate the cost risks associated with sponsorship.
Our corporate immigration team can provide holistic legal advice across employment and immigration law. If you require advice or assistance in preparing a clawback or repayment agreement, contact Jayesh Jethwa at corporateimmigration@quastels.com
Read Moretrusted legal excellence
Contact us today to discover how we can support you with legal solutions that stand out from the rest.
Get in Touch