竞业限制调查|离职后通过配偶投资存在竞争关系的企业
离职后通过配偶投资存在竞争关系的企业
离职后通过配偶投资存在竞争关系的企业，法院认定违反竞业限制义务。
2018年7月31日，张某雷入职某体育公司，任教学研发中心总经理，负责教学教研管理。双方签订竞业限制协议，约定张某雷在劳动关系
存续期间及两年的竞业限制期间，不得实施违反竞业限制的相关行为。张某雷于2021年7月31日离职。某体育公司向张某雷支付了5个月
的竞业限制经济补偿。
张某雷之妻于2021年12月变更为天津某冠公司的投资人（持有95%的股份），经营业务与某体育公司存在竞争关系。张某雷之妻投资的
天津某冠公司的关联公司为张某雷缴纳社会保险金。某体育公司认为张某雷违反竞业限制约定，应返还竞业经济补偿并承担违约责任，向
某劳动人事争议仲裁委员会申请仲裁。某劳动人事争议仲裁委员会裁决，张某雷返还某体育公司竞业经济补偿、支付违约金。张某雷不服，
起诉至法院，请求判决无需返还竞业经济补偿金及支付违约金。
法院认为
张某雷任教学研发中心总经理，负责管理工作，对某体育公司的经营管理有决策权，应按照竞业限制协议等约定履行竞业限制义务。张某雷
之妻作为投资人的天津某冠公司，在经营业务上与某
体育公司存在竞争关系，属于竞业限制单位。考虑到张某雷与配偶之间具有紧密的人身和财产关系，经济利益上具有一致性，且其配偶的投
资行为发生在张某雷从某体育公司离职后，故认定张某雷违反了竞业限制约定。综合考量劳动者给用人单位造成的损害、劳动者的主观过错
程度、工资收入水平、职务、在职时间、违约期间、用人单位应支付的经济补偿数额以及当地的经济水平等因素，法院酌定张某雷支付某体
育公司违反竞业限制违约金的数额，并判令返还竞业限制经济补偿金。
After leaving his job, an individual invested in a competing company through his spouse, and the court ruled that this violated the non-compete obligation.
On July 31, 2018, Zhang Moulei joined a sports company as the General Manager of the Teaching and Research Development Center, responsible for teaching and research management. Both parties signed a non-compete agreement, stipulating that Zhang Moulei shall not engage in any behavior that violates the non-compete restrictions during the employment period and for a two-year period after leaving the company. Zhang Moulei resigned on July 31, 2021. The sports company paid Zhang Moulei economic compensation for non-compete restrictions for five months.
In December 2021, Zhang Moulei's wife became an investor (holding 95% of the shares) in a Tianjin-based company, whose business operations compete with those of the sports company. The affiliated company of the Tianjin-based company, in which Zhang Moulei's wife invested, paid social insurance for Zhang Moulei. The sports company believed that Zhang Moulei had violated the non-compete agreement and should return the economic compensation for non-compete restrictions and bear the responsibility for breach of contract. It then applied for arbitration to a labor and personnel dispute arbitration committee. The committee ruled that Zhang Moulei should return the economic compensation for non-compete restrictions to the sports company and pay a penalty for breach of contract. Dissatisfied with the ruling, Zhang Moulei filed a lawsuit in court, requesting a judgment that he was not required to return the economic compensation for non-compete restrictions or pay the penalty for breach of contract.
The court held that:
As the General Manager of the Teaching and Research Development Center, Zhang Moulei was responsible for management work and had decision-making power in the operation and management of the sports company. He should fulfill the non-compete obligations in accordance with the non-compete agreement and other relevant agreements. The Tianjin-based company, in which Zhang Moulei's wife is an investor, competes with the sports company in business operations and is therefore a non-compete entity. Considering the close personal and property relationship between Zhang Moulei and his spouse, their economic interests are aligned, and his spouse's investment behavior occurred after Zhang Moulei left the sports company, the court determined that Zhang Moulei had violated the non-compete agreement. After comprehensively considering factors such as the damage caused by the employee to the employer, the employee's subjective degree of fault, salary level, position, duration of employment, period of breach, the amount of economic compensation that the employer should pay, and the local economic level, the court discretionarily determined the amount of the penalty for breach of the non-compete restrictions that Zhang Moulei should pay to the sports company, and ordered the return of the economic compensation for non-compete restrictions.
------------------------------------------------------------
你可能还会感兴趣的话题：
扫码联系我们