Introduction
The variety of job roles covered by post-employment rules in restrictive covenants is an important part of employment law. This principle, set out in cases like Green v Ashco Horticultural [1966] 1 WLR 889, addresses how far employers can limit former workers’ jobs to protect real business needs. The central question is whether such rules are reasonable in what they restrict, where they apply, and how long they last, especially when an employee had mixed duties during their work. Courts review the rule’s terms to decide if it protects trade secrets, customer ties, or other confidential details without overly limiting the worker’s ability to find new jobs.
The Facts of Green v Ashco Horticultural
Mr. Green, the claimant, was a manager at Ashco Horticultural. His contract included a clause preventing him from working in horticulture within a defined region for two years after leaving Ashco. His job involved both hands-on tasks and supervisory duties. After resigning, he joined a rival company, prompting Ashco to request a court order to enforce the clause.
The Court of Appeal's Decision
The Court of Appeal decided the rule could not be enforced. It concluded the restriction was too wide, as it barred Mr. Green from all horticultural roles, even those unrelated to his specific work at Ashco. Since his job included both specialist and general tasks, the rule was deemed unreasonable. It prevented him from working in areas where his actions posed no real threat to Ashco’s business interests.
The Importance of Varied Job Roles
Green v Ashco Horticultural shows that restrictive covenants must align closely with the actual work done by the employee. Rules covering more activities than the worker performed will likely be invalid. Courts aim to prevent misuse of confidential details or customer relationships gained through specific job duties, not to block all future work in a broad field.
Guidance for Writing Restrictive Covenants
The ruling in Green v Ashco Horticultural provides practical steps for drafting valid post-employment rules. First, the clause should directly reflect the employee’s specific responsibilities and the sensitive information or relationships they handled. Second, geographic and time limits must be reasonable and tied to the business needs being safeguarded. Broad rules covering an entire industry will rarely succeed if the worker’s role was narrow.
Comparing Green v Ashco Horticultural to Similar Cases
Green v Ashco Horticultural differs from cases where broader rules may apply. For instance, senior employees with access to wide-ranging confidential data might justify more extensive restrictions. Similarly, roles involving access to key customer relationships could support wider clauses. The key distinction in Green v Ashco Horticultural was the mismatch between the rule’s scope and Mr. Green’s actual exposure to confidential details or customer ties during his varied duties.
Conclusion
Green v Ashco Horticultural remains a key case for applying the varied job roles principle to restrictive covenants. It demonstrates the need to tailor rules precisely to the employee’s specific work and access to confidential information. By linking restrictions to the exact nature of the role and business needs, employers can increase the likelihood of enforceability while respecting workers’ rights to pursue future employment. Poorly designed rules, as seen in this case, risk being invalidated, leaving businesses unprotected. The judgment serves as a practical guide for lawyers and employers seeking to create reasonable post-employment rules, balancing business protection with fair limits on workers’ job choices.
