Resources: Blog

Sports agency sues former employees for poaching clients

Blog
|

Who's with me?

A recent dispute between one of Australia’s leading sports agencies and two of its ex-employees is a reminder to employers about the importance of implementing processes to protect confidential information, including that of their customers and clients.

A recent dispute between one of Australia’s leading sports agencies and two of it's ex-employees is a reminder to employers about the importance of implementing processes to protect confidential information, including that of their customers and clients.

Ultra Management Sports, an agency that represents many elite rugby league and rugby union players, commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, claiming that two of it's player agents amended player/agent contracts without authorisation. The alleged amendments included the insertion of clauses which allowed those players to leave the agency if and when those agents eventually left.

Ultra is claiming that the contracts were amended following an update to the NRL player agent contract policy, which included a clause in new contracts that would tie clients to their agents, and not the company that the agents worked for. The agents allegedly amended the existing contracts of 16 players despite the policy stating that existing contracts were not affected by the policy change and they would simply run their course. The agents subsequently created their own sports agency and a number of their clients then joined that new agency.

Ultra is seeking damages resulting from the conduct of the agents, which it claims amounted to an illegal poaching of clients and a failure to act in the best interests of their then-employer.

A 5-day hearing of the matter in the Federal Court of Australia recently ended on 8 October 2019, with the Court reserving its decision.

Whilst we await the outcome, this matter is a prime example of why employers should ensure that they have adequation protections in place to regulate what an employee can and cannot do during their employment, including authorisation to amend contracts with clients.

Employers should also ensure that their employment contracts appropriately deal with what an employee can and cannot do with the employer’s confidential information, and that of its customers and clients, both during and after employment. The more senior an employee is in the business, the more stringent those protections or limitations should be.

It is also an important lesson for athletes to ensure that they fully understand what their rights and obligations will be under any contract, and that their management team is acting in their best interests. Managing contracts can be complex as there are a number of things to consider, such as contracts with clubs, sporting organisations, third party sponsors and even contracts with player agents themselves.

It is therefore crucial that athletes understand what their obligations are and that they trust the advisors they partner with to act in their best interests.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

Employee fails in bid to have safety-related dismissal found to be unfair

Garbage in, garbage out

A dismissed employee can lodge an unfair dismissal claim alleging that their dismissal was “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”. Employees will often claim that the dismissal was all three: harsh, unjust and unreasonable.

Read more...

FWC upholds dismissal of an employee who repeatedly and deliberately accessed customer’s confidential information without authorisation

Celebrity search

During the course of their employment, employees may have access to confidential information which belongs to their employer. This information may be in the form of personal information provided by customers and is therefore sensitive in nature.

Read more...

Full Bench quashes order to reinstate labour hire employee to host employer

Host with the most

In the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, where it is found by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) that an employee has been unfairly dismissed, the primary remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) is for the employee to be reinstated to the position they held immediately prior to their dismissal or another position on no less favourable terms.

Read more...

Court fines PCBU $60,000 for failing to re-assess the risks associated with changing site conditions

Set and forget

Persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) have a positive obligation to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and others.

Read more...

Employee fails in bid to have safety-related dismissal found to be unfair

Garbage in, garbage out

A dismissed employee can lodge an unfair dismissal claim alleging that their dismissal was “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”. Employees will often claim that the dismissal was all three: harsh, unjust and unreasonable.

Read more...

Fair Work Commission finds employer’s failure to comply with its consultation obligations rendered an employee’s dismissal to be unfair

Pick up the phone

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on Australian businesses. Employers have had to, with little notice, adapt to these changing circumstances to try and minimise the adverse impact of lockdowns on the business and its employees.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.