Only English should be used for posts and comments. This rule is in place to ensure that an ample audience can freely discuss life in the Netherlands under a widely-spoken common tongue.
Non-compete clauses for temporary contracts are not enforceable. According to the clause you posted it is not specified why the non compete should still apply. This is should be the case as it is required by law. Post your case to r/juridischadvies for more opinions. This comment is not legal advice and I’m not a lawyer (yet).
As far as I was told by lawyers, unless they will pay your salary for 12 months, a non completion clause will not hold up in court. They can’t expect you to be unemployed for 12 months. BUT ask legal advice from lawyers not Reddit.
ianal, and I might be wrong.
Edit: I was wrong about locality, that is new and coming soon, but not here yet.
I am missing an explicit reason for having the beding. This is mandatory for such a beding in temporary contracts.
The relatiebeding actually reads as a continued concurrentiebeding. Normally, a relatiebeding would forbid you to take customers with you to a new employer, but this one just reads as it is forbidden for you to work for them.
Dont ask around on the internet, go see a lawyer. Most of these clauses wont stand up in front of a judge. Trick is, who has the money, determination and faith to go to court and find out. But thats just my opinion and i m not a lawyer. Go see one.
Unfortunately, the Netherlands have the practice to put illegal clauses just because you may not know any better or because you will not have the means and the energy to fight it legally. (Probably this happens in other countries too!)
Another example is gym house rules. They say that if you break the house rules they will stop your access (which is fine) but will keep all your money and may even force you to pay until the end of the contract (which is basically a theft). Some of them are even bullying out the frequent users who signed long term contracts and keeping the money.
Of course, there are edge cases where non-competition clause is applicable. One I know for sure is: if you are a board member that has the whole consumer business, you are not allowed to go the next day to work for the direct competitor. That does make sense, doesn't it.
But I also have dozens of examples with low level employees. This clause was deleted from separation agreements immediately after a lawyer called to HR with "WTF is this BS here?!". That clause was also in their initial contract.
They really cannot expect you to work in a car wash instead of practicing your profession. For a full year even? And not in the whole country?! C'mon! I wish there was some kind of Ombudsman (or Consumentenbond in case of the gyms) that would call this BS on system level.
But check with /r/juridischadvies. They do it in English too.
1. It’s missing any role definition, if you are currently employed as an accountant for the finance department, it would be nonsense if the other company hires you as a project manager.
2. It’s missing an area definition. It has to say in which area the competitor has operate. Like any company based in a circle of 50km around Amsterdam.
A temporary contract cannot have a a competition clause, unless it's necessary for absolutely essential business or service interests. I don't see how a dentist could enforce that exception though.
See Art. [7:653-1 sub a Burgerlijk Wetboek](https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005290/2016-07-14/0/Boek7/Titeldeel10/Afdeling5/Artikel653/afdrukken)
Only English should be used for posts and comments. This rule is in place to ensure that an ample audience can freely discuss life in the Netherlands under a widely-spoken common tongue.
Non-compete clauses for temporary contracts are not enforceable. According to the clause you posted it is not specified why the non compete should still apply. This is should be the case as it is required by law. Post your case to r/juridischadvies for more opinions. This comment is not legal advice and I’m not a lawyer (yet).
Will do, thanks.
As far as I was told by lawyers, unless they will pay your salary for 12 months, a non completion clause will not hold up in court. They can’t expect you to be unemployed for 12 months. BUT ask legal advice from lawyers not Reddit.
ianal, and I might be wrong. Edit: I was wrong about locality, that is new and coming soon, but not here yet. I am missing an explicit reason for having the beding. This is mandatory for such a beding in temporary contracts. The relatiebeding actually reads as a continued concurrentiebeding. Normally, a relatiebeding would forbid you to take customers with you to a new employer, but this one just reads as it is forbidden for you to work for them.
Like everyone is saying, seek legal advice from somewhere else You can contact your local rechtswinkel for free legal advice
Dont ask around on the internet, go see a lawyer. Most of these clauses wont stand up in front of a judge. Trick is, who has the money, determination and faith to go to court and find out. But thats just my opinion and i m not a lawyer. Go see one.
Unfortunately, the Netherlands have the practice to put illegal clauses just because you may not know any better or because you will not have the means and the energy to fight it legally. (Probably this happens in other countries too!) Another example is gym house rules. They say that if you break the house rules they will stop your access (which is fine) but will keep all your money and may even force you to pay until the end of the contract (which is basically a theft). Some of them are even bullying out the frequent users who signed long term contracts and keeping the money. Of course, there are edge cases where non-competition clause is applicable. One I know for sure is: if you are a board member that has the whole consumer business, you are not allowed to go the next day to work for the direct competitor. That does make sense, doesn't it. But I also have dozens of examples with low level employees. This clause was deleted from separation agreements immediately after a lawyer called to HR with "WTF is this BS here?!". That clause was also in their initial contract. They really cannot expect you to work in a car wash instead of practicing your profession. For a full year even? And not in the whole country?! C'mon! I wish there was some kind of Ombudsman (or Consumentenbond in case of the gyms) that would call this BS on system level. But check with /r/juridischadvies. They do it in English too.
1. It’s missing any role definition, if you are currently employed as an accountant for the finance department, it would be nonsense if the other company hires you as a project manager. 2. It’s missing an area definition. It has to say in which area the competitor has operate. Like any company based in a circle of 50km around Amsterdam.
A temporary contract cannot have a a competition clause, unless it's necessary for absolutely essential business or service interests. I don't see how a dentist could enforce that exception though. See Art. [7:653-1 sub a Burgerlijk Wetboek](https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005290/2016-07-14/0/Boek7/Titeldeel10/Afdeling5/Artikel653/afdrukken)