我国竞业限制泛化适用的问题严重,司法实践对于竞业限制协议的效力基础认识不清晰。竞业限制协议应明确以商业秘密为可保护利益与正当性前提,企业的商业目的与保护商业秘密的立法目的不能混同。界定竞业限制的适用范围应从主体和客体两...我国竞业限制泛化适用的问题严重,司法实践对于竞业限制协议的效力基础认识不清晰。竞业限制协议应明确以商业秘密为可保护利益与正当性前提,企业的商业目的与保护商业秘密的立法目的不能混同。界定竞业限制的适用范围应从主体和客体两个方面入手,现行法中竞业限制适用主体应严格限定“负有保密义务人员”,用人单位在诉讼中应承担员工实际知悉或掌握商业秘密的举证责任,司法应回归对保密义务的实质审查。竞业限制可保护利益的范畴不宜随意扩大,司法层面盲目扩张可保护利益的范畴将对劳动者的合法权益产生不利影响。The issue of overgeneralized application of non-compete clauses in China is severe, and judicial practices lack clarity regarding the validity basis of non-compete agreements. Non-compete agreements should clearly stipulate that the protectable interest and legitimacy premise are commercial secrets. The commercial objectives of enterprises should not be conflated with the legislative intent to protect commercial secrets. Defining the scope of applicability for non-compete clauses should involve both the subjects and objects of such clauses. According to current laws, the application subjects of non-compete clauses should be strictly limited to “personnel with confidentiality obligations.” In litigation, employers should bear the burden of proof that employees actually knew or controlled commercial secrets. Judicial practices should return to substantive examination of confidentiality obligations. The scope of protectable interests under non-compete clauses should not be arbitrarily expanded;blindly expanding the scope of protectable interests at the judicial level will have adverse effects on the legitimate rights and interests of employees.展开更多
文摘我国竞业限制泛化适用的问题严重,司法实践对于竞业限制协议的效力基础认识不清晰。竞业限制协议应明确以商业秘密为可保护利益与正当性前提,企业的商业目的与保护商业秘密的立法目的不能混同。界定竞业限制的适用范围应从主体和客体两个方面入手,现行法中竞业限制适用主体应严格限定“负有保密义务人员”,用人单位在诉讼中应承担员工实际知悉或掌握商业秘密的举证责任,司法应回归对保密义务的实质审查。竞业限制可保护利益的范畴不宜随意扩大,司法层面盲目扩张可保护利益的范畴将对劳动者的合法权益产生不利影响。The issue of overgeneralized application of non-compete clauses in China is severe, and judicial practices lack clarity regarding the validity basis of non-compete agreements. Non-compete agreements should clearly stipulate that the protectable interest and legitimacy premise are commercial secrets. The commercial objectives of enterprises should not be conflated with the legislative intent to protect commercial secrets. Defining the scope of applicability for non-compete clauses should involve both the subjects and objects of such clauses. According to current laws, the application subjects of non-compete clauses should be strictly limited to “personnel with confidentiality obligations.” In litigation, employers should bear the burden of proof that employees actually knew or controlled commercial secrets. Judicial practices should return to substantive examination of confidentiality obligations. The scope of protectable interests under non-compete clauses should not be arbitrarily expanded;blindly expanding the scope of protectable interests at the judicial level will have adverse effects on the legitimate rights and interests of employees.
