The Dismissed Employee and the Non-Compete Clause
Nadia is employed as a regional sales manager by a Belgian software company under a permanent contract. Her contract includes a non-compete clause: for 12 months after leaving, she may not work for any competitor in Belgium, the Netherlands, and France. Her monthly salary is €4,200. She resigns on 1 April and joins a competitor on 1 June. The employer sues for breach, seeking €50,000. Nadia argues (a) the clause is invalid because it lacks a geographic limit proportionate to her role, (b) the employer never paid any compensation, and (c) her role was not 'trust-sensitive' enough. The employer says the clause was standard and she signed it.
1. Assess the validity of the non-compete clause under Belgian employment law.
Read the worked answer
Framework. Non-compete clauses for employees are governed by the Law of 3 July 1978 on employment contracts (arts. 65-66). For employees earning above the statutory threshold, a valid clause requires: (i) a written agreement; (ii) a genuine link to the employee's function; (iii) a geographic scope limited to where the employee could compete; (iv) a maximum duration of 12 months; and (v) payment of a single compensation (indemnité de non-concurrence) of at least half the monthly salary for the duration, unless the employer waives the clause within 15 days of termination.
Application. (i) Written: yes. (iv) Duration: 12 months, at the limit. (iii) Geography: Belgium, the Netherlands, and France is broad but may be justified for a regional sales manager whose territory spans those markets - this is arguable, not automatically invalid. (ii) Function: a regional sales manager has access to clients and pricing, so the 'trust-sensitive' argument is weak against the employer. (v) Compensation: the employer paid nothing and did not show a valid waiver. This is fatal: the clause is invalid for lack of compensation.
Conclusion. The clause is unenforceable, principally because no compensation was paid and no timely waiver is shown. The geographic argument is secondary and weaker.
2. If the clause were valid, how would the €50,000 claim be assessed?
Read the worked answer
Nature of the claim. The employer's €50,000 is a damages claim, not the statutory non-compete indemnity. Under the employment contract law, breach of a valid non-compete clause entitles the employer to damages equal to the compensation it would have owed, unless it proves greater loss (art. 66). The €50,000 must therefore be tested against that cap and against proof of actual loss.
Calculation. The statutory reference is half the monthly salary per month of the clause: €2,100 × 12 = €25,200. The employer cannot simply claim €50,000 without proving that Nadia's move caused loss exceeding €25,200 (e.g. lost clients).
Burden. The employer bears the burden of proving causation and quantum. Nadia may argue the competitor targets a different segment, or that her departure did not cause the claimed loss. The court should cap any award at the proven loss and, absent proof, at the statutory reference.
Interaction with invalidity. Because the clause is invalid (previous task), the claim fails entirely; the above applies only if a court were to uphold the clause.