Is this non-compete legal?

[Noncompete]

I have been offered a training position in a role where members of the public come for classes. The company consists of branches in different localities across a county.

I receive no payment at all for being a trainee, and the knowledge and experience gained is considered full payment. There are vague stipulations as to what is deemed qualified, and it states that 1-6 years can be considered reasonable to get qualified.

The training contract has a non-compete clause that states that I am not allowed to offer any advice or training in the subject for monetary gain, within 3 miles of any branch (which basically rules out most of my county) for a period of 2 years after leaving them.

That means that if I sign this contract, I am committing that I won't give any paid advice or training in this area for, potentially, 8 years.

I was quite interested, in the future, in doing this training on a residential basis, but I live within 1 mile of a branch, so would be unable to.

Is this legal or enforceable?

It doesn't sound like a very good deal. What are you supposed to live on?

St John’s ambulance ?

An exclusivity clause is common a million years ago I used to do fitness classes at the council leisure centre if I was employed by them as a contracted employee I couldn’t teach elsewhere

Common to have one but it has to be reasonable and not prevent you working at your career at all.

So 5 miles of hairdresser x -okay if small town. But not of the whole chain across the country. Or even say London.

6 months reasonable but 2 years not.

Did that extend for 2 years after leaving?

Yes. The whole point is to stop you poaching clients.

No soon as you left you could do what you want
which I did including returning to them as freelance

This seems like an unreasonable restraint of trade rswlaw.co.uk/understanding-uk-restraint-of-trade-from-an-employment-perspective/

If there are so many branches then surely it's not outing to give a few more details. I'm struggling to picture what type of training this is. It seems very restrictive

Debt counselling charities provide free training for volunteers but you can't then work commercially. Training costs money remember

2 years is about as long as you can get for a non compete. It's legal.

If they train you, they own you or you do something else. I'd get trained a different way. Pay for it instead.

You can speak to them and say you disagree with the terms. I can imagine if this is their business model they won't change.

IANAL but I am involved in drafting employment contracts

I don’t think this is enforceable. Restrictive covenants should be proportionate and should not prevent someone earning a living. You are a trainee, not in a senior role, and you aren’t even being paid.

Something like 3 months re work and 6-12 months re not poaching clients would be far more reasonable, and I would also check with eg ACAS if any covenants are enforceable for an unpaid person.

I'd be more concerned you don't get paid for training and 1 to 6 years is a wide time period range. Are they going to make you do 6 years of free training?

If the training time takes you below minimum wage I'd report this practice to HMRC I think it is who track payment of minimum wage. I'd report this anyway even if you don't work for them in the end.

Can you supply more explanation? It's hard to picture what this is .

It's dog training. I'm not comfortable with the open ended element of what is considered 'trained'. There are two courses trainees must have completed, which they pay for, plus a written and practical assessment, but it's very unclear who decides you're ready for them, or when.

3 miles of the branch I'm training in, fine. But not for 2 years, and not 3 miles of any branch.

I'm confused, so you are paying for the training? If that's the case they're taking the piss.

IAAL. 2 years won’t be enforceable - 3-6months would be normal but it needs to be reasonable and proportionate. if they aren’t paying you I’d say there’s strong arguments for even a shorter restriction to be unenforceable.

ultimately the onus is on them to prove the restriction is enforceable. So if you ignored it they would have to show a two year restriction is reasonable/proportionate/necessary etc. from what you’ve said, it’s unlikely.

I think I might have to walk away. I'm not the type to sign something that I don't agree with. I'm also not the type to sign something knowing I have no intention of complying with it. I guess my only options are to say 'I'll sign if you remove/amend this clause' or 'No thanks'.

I'm a litigation lawyer and I regularly deal with disputes over the enforceability of restrictive covenants. It is not possible to advise without knowing more about the business model and the exact wording of the restriction, but I'd stick my neck out and say that it sounds unenforceable both because of the geographic reach and the length of the restriction.

Can’t you do the training somewhere else? Pay for the courses yourself? Then you won’t be beholden to anyone.

@Elektra1 thank you. I think, for me, the issue is that I am a great believer in honesty and integrity. I can't in good conscience agree to terms that I will not be sticking to, even if they are legally non-enforceable.

@Ivehearditbothways I am investigating other options. It's just sad because I like the people I 'work' with and haven't actually met the person I would have the contract with yet.

In general, no, in that I attend the classes, help set up, help with exercises and have started to lead exercises under supervision of the manager. However, an essential part of getting qualified is to attend and pass 2 courses that I have to pay for.

@Noncompete " I can't in good conscience agree to terms that I will not be sticking to, even if they are legally non-enforceable."

Employers who put unenforceable restrictive covenants in their employment contracts know that they aren't enforceable. They are there to act as a deterrent to employees who may be too fearful to breach them. If you want the role I'd just take it and worry about what you're going to do later, later

Potentially enforceable at the branch where you have been training but I would think 2 years is way too long.
As to extending to branches where you haven’t trained then almost certainly not enforceable.
A national non-compete is hard to enforce on a very high earner with a national role and I doubt 2 years would be ever be enforceable as part of an employment agreement.

What do you mean with “I receive no payment at all for being a trainee, and the knowledge and experience gained is considered full payment.”

That you won’t be getting paid for completing training? But you will be paid as a trainer whilst working for them?
This would then make sense that they have restrictions on you taking payment elsewhere when you leave them. That would be potentially enforceable, and what is reasonable / unreasonable could be subject to opinion, but once you’ve signed you have accepted those terms

Sounds a bit like mlm to be, recruiting from within compulsory courses ...