招聘有竞业协议的员工，公司需要承担连带责任吗？|极兔竞调
公司因发展较快，近期在招聘高端研发类的人才。但面试完以后，我们发现有部分研发的员工存在竞业限制协议的
情况，这时老板有些犹豫了。直接录用在上家单位签了竞业限制协议的员工，如果被原公司发现，我们公司需要承
担相关连带责任吗？录用有竞业协议的员工，公司是否需要承担连带责任，这取决于具体情况和相关法律规定及所
在的区域。
一、大多数城市的法律规定公司不承担连带责任的情况
违反竞业限制协议是员工的个人行业，所以就是他个人责任：根据《劳动合同法》及相关司法解释，劳动者违反竞业
限制约定，需要向原用人单位支付违约金或赔偿损失。这是员工个人的法律责任，原则上与公司无关。
同时，公司并无恶意招用：如果公司在录用有竞业协议的员工时，并不知道或没有合理理由怀疑该员工负有竞业限制
义务，且已经尽到了必要的审查义务，那么公司通常不需要承担连带责任。
在多数地区，法院通常认为竞业限制违约责任是一种合同责任，新单位不是竞业限制协议的相对方，因此要求新单位
承担连带责任没有依据。这些地区的法院一般不会支持基于竞业限制协议要求新单位承担连带责任的诉求。
二、有些城市或地区公司可能需要承担连带责任的情况
1.明知或应知员工负有竞业限制义务：如果公司在录用有竞业协议的员工时，明知或应知该员工负有竞业限制义务，但
仍然决定录用，那么公司可能会被视为与员工共同侵犯了原用人单位的合法权益，从而需要承担连带责任。
2.恶意串通或协助违约：如果公司有证据证明新用人单位与劳动者存在恶意串通，或者新用人单位故意协助劳动者违反竞
业限制协议，那么新用人单位可能需要与劳动者一起承担连带赔偿责任。但这种情况在法律实践中较为少见，且需要充分
的证据支持。
3.深圳地区：根据《深圳经济特区企业技术秘密保护条例》的相关规定，如果新单位知道或者应当知道该员工对于原单位负
有竞业限制义务，仍然招用该员工的，应当承担连带责任。深圳地区的司法实践也基本遵循这一规定。
4.商业秘密侵权：即便在不要求新单位承担连带责任的地区，如果新单位侵犯了原单位的商业秘密，原单位仍然可以根据
《反不正当竞争法》等法律法规要求新单位承担相应的民事赔偿责任或行政责任。
极兔竞调，专注竞业限制12年，关注我，教你如何破局！
Due to its rapid development, the company is currently recruiting high-end R&D talents. But after the interview,
we found that some R&D employees had non compete agreements, and these bosses were hesitant. If an
employee who has signed a non compete agreement with their previous employer is directly hired and discovered
by the original company, does our company need to bear joint and several liability? Whether the company needs
to bear joint and several liability for hiring employees with non compete agreements depends on the specific
situation, relevant laws and regulations, and the region where they are located.
1、 The laws in most cities stipulate that companies do not assume joint and several liability
Violation of non compete agreements is the personal responsibility of employees in their respective industries.
According to the Labor Contract Law and relevant judicial interpretations, employees who violate non compete
agreements are required to pay liquidated damages or compensate for losses to the original employer. This is the
personal legal responsibility of the employee and, in principle, has nothing to do with the company.
At the same time, the company does not engage in malicious recruitment: if the company does not know or has no
reasonable reason to suspect that an employee with a non compete agreement has a non compete obligation and
has fulfilled the necessary review obligations, then the company usually does not need to bear joint liability.
In most regions, courts generally consider non compete breach of contract liability to be a contractual liability, and
the new entity is not the counterparty to the non compete agreement, so there is no basis for requiring the new
entity to assume joint and several liability. Courts in these regions generally do not support the demand for joint
and several liability of new units based on non compete agreements.
2、 Some cities or regions may require companies to bear joint and several liability
1. Knowing or should have known that an employee has a non compete obligation: If a company decides to hire an
employee who has a non compete agreement, knowing or should have known that the employee has a non compete
obligation, the company may be deemed to have jointly infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of the
original employer, and thus need to bear joint and several liability.
2. Malicious collusion or assistance in breach of contract: If the company has evidence of malicious collusion
between the new employer and the employee, or if the new employer intentionally assists the employee in violating
the non compete agreement, the new employer may be jointly liable with the employee for compensation. But this
situation is relatively rare in legal practice and requires sufficient evidence to support it.
3. Shenzhen region: According to the relevant provisions of the "Regulations on the Protection of Enterprise Technical
Secrets in Shenzhen Special Economic Zone", if a new unit knows or should know that the employee has a non
compete obligation to the original unit and still hires the employee, it shall bear joint and several liability. The judicial
practice in Shenzhen also basically follows this regulation.
Trade secret infringement: Even in areas where the new unit is not required to bear joint liability, if the new unit infringes
on the trade secrets of the original unit, the original unit can still demand that the new unit bear corresponding civil
compensation liability or administrative liability in accordance with laws and regulations such as the Anti Unfair
Competition Law.
Jitu Competitive Adjustment, focusing on non compete restrictions for 12 years, follow me and teach you how to break through!
------------------------------------------------------------
你可能还会感兴趣的话题：
扫码联系我们