Is there a non-compete clause in the severance?
22 replies (most recent on top)
Ask bloody HR not this forum.
"I did in a past life" LOL, gotcha! Never mind, I'll follow my lawyers advice, thanks.
3bxh
Ignore these id–ts! Take your chances. I did in a past life. Your right, If a non-compete is unreasonable It’s junk.
Besides that, unless your a pretty high psg, it’s not going to be worth the hassle for Cvx to go after you.
Just apply for jobs out of your function, 1 PSG up if u want the EOI. LOL will be funny for another function selection slate to have to discuss some IT person's app for a GM of Wells job, while a diversity council person watches judgmentally lol
@3bxh, yea, try it with CVX, tough guy, you'll lose. I'll watch. LMAO!
Anyone else have insight into severance and going to work with SSPs? Some SSPS are huge, and one could easily work for them and never touch a chevron project. Seems unreasonable in the current environment to take any employment options off the table for folks.
Google is your friend:
https://www.kennardlaw.com/News-Client-Information/Articles/Non-compete-agreements-in-Texas-and-the-reasonableness-requirement.shtml
Non-compete has to make sense, or it's junk! Even if you did sign it.
No, FALSE, I have had it happen. A non-compete clause is a legally binding document. You cannot, under penalty of law, obtain future employment under the terms. You can obtain other kinds of work. They have their own lawyers working on these things and they do it correctly. Don't try to play lawyer on this site or think you are immune from law based on your biased views, political or otherwise. However, I think it is rarely implemented/enforced and there is not that kind of "non-compete" clause for these types of large-scale layoffs. You can work wherever you want, which is unfortunately, severely limited at this time. Get over yourselves and start thinking about THAT instead.
Very true, as non-compete clauses in work contracts are meant to prevent valuable employees, principally upper management and executives, from being poached by competitors or those valuable employees from running off to start their own businesses with knowledge gained from their previous employer. These non-compete contracts also expire after a certain time after separation, maybe 1, 2 or more years.
I agree with the last post.
Courts can find contracts. It’s called Undue Influence or Unconscionability.
If Person B forced Person A to enter into an agreement by taking advantage of a special or particularly persuasive relationship that Person B had with Person A, the resulting contract might be found unenforceable on grounds of undue influence.
Or
Unconscionability means that a term in the contract or something inherent in or about the agreement was so shockingly unfair That courts will not enforce it.
There are many contracts that have to be signed that won’t hold up in a court of law. If there unreasonable, it doesn’t matter. One of them was in our own contract to our vendors (the template has since been changed)
I work in procurement and It used to say something to the effect that if they failed to invoice us within 90 of services provided we were no longer responsible for that amount.
Well, guess who failed to invoice us within 90 days and guess who got sued For not paying?
It didn’t make it all the way to court, we just paid them on the advice of our own attorneys, regardless of what the contract says. I was told that is what the contract said, but if we went to court, it would not hold up.... it’s unreasonable.
It’s also unreasonable to lay someone off and expect them to not provide for themselves or there family in their speciality.
You can bet if I get laid off, I’m going to find another job, and take the severance.... regardless of what the Severance paperwork says. If it says I can’t compete, that’s unreasonable.... and won’t hold up in a court of law.
That's precious @1snt, "I doubt that would hold up in a court of law"... Bless your sweet heart, dear! A legally binding document that has to be signed by you in order to receive severance pay. You stay sweet now, huh?
Non-Compete clauses do exist, but only in the highest of PSG ranks. About 99% of us need not worry as it won’t pertain to us.
Sounded like getting rebadged could result in loss of Severance in a meeting I was in, but they are working on it to clarify.
there isn't a non compete. only thing I saw was can't sue over employment related issues..
The test of non-compete "I this in the public best interest" If a company tries enforce a very wide ranging non compete it won't pass the test so they tend to make em as specific as possible.
Are they really tracking when/if you find new employment?
I understand what your saying but I honestly don’t think it would hold up in a court of law.
Not sure if this means the same as the “non compete” topic raised in this thread, but during the CEMREC call today, we were told that those who are laid off and receive severance from CVX, and subsequently find employment with one of our strategic sourcing partners (SSP), have to pay the severance back to CVX. I don’t recall what the timeframe was - could be if you find work with the SSP within a year of your termination date??? If what I think I heard today is correct, it seems unduly harsh to people who already have to go through the trauma of a layoff and uncertainty about finding other employment in such a tough job market. They did not indicate if a prorated amount would be calculated, if let’s say you’re out of work for 3 months, and then get hired by the SSP, do you have to give back your entire severance or just a portion? If other CEMREC folks heard this and know more, please correct me.
YES: Well in past rounds of the hunger game over the years if you didn't compete for the jobs on offer within Chevron you lost the right to a severance package. The rationale being if you didn't apply it was your choice to leave and therefore a resignation without severance. At least the EOI's have allowed some to escape the stress and madness.
What oil and gas company is trying to hire anyone at this point?
I Haven’t seen it yet but I doubt it.
They can’t expect to lay you off and then demand you don’t work in your field of specialty.
Even if there was, I doubt that would hold up in a court of law.