Our bank has decided to require that many managers and supervisors sign a non-compete agreement. Previously this had been required only for executive management. The agreement prohibits work for another bank for a period of 12 months after leaving this bank for any reason. The geographic reach extends to 50 miles from any office of this bank, which effectively excludes about one-half of the state.

Is this becoming common practice for banks to require this of managers and supervisors?

That seem pretty strict. My bank does have that, the only thing they have is a "no poach" agreement for managers. Basically, if you leave, you can't take anyone with you for a year. I've also seen clauses that prohibit you from contacting customers and taking information about trade processes.

It would seem that they are inhibiting your ability to seek employment - that would probably be an issue in CA. I could see key members of senior management - that's somewhat common - but this seems a bit excessive to me.

We use non-compete agreements in our firm. Our lawyers have advised us that most non-compete agreements are not enforceable because they are too restrictive. Courts have ruled that I can't make it a hardship for the ex-employee to find similar employment, I can only stop you from competing unnecessarily against me.

The agreement described sounds too restrictive. They also have to be enforced. What you are doing invites people to sign it and then later ignore it. The bank has the burden of enforcing it, which costs bucks and this one sound too risky to win.

This kind of agreement also creates moral issues. Ask management to look at the big picture.

A friend was laid off from one of the 'big' banks. They were quick to point out to her that she'd signed a non-compete when they acquired the bank she was working for previously.

She had a job offer from another bank, but they weren't willing to hire her until this was resolved. She had a lawyer friend write a letter, pointing out the obvious - they laid her off, but didn't want her to work anywhere else either! The 'big bank' backed off quite quickly.

I can see the reasoning for the clause if someone leaves voluntarily, although that would certainly hurt most small to medium size town banks. They hire people from other banks to get their customers!

Not only that, but there are SOME customers that you wish those employees WOULD take with them!

I would agree that most "non-competes" prohibit an employee from contacting existing bank customers. But the non-compete that prohibits you from even getting a job? Can you say "Class Action?"