The recruitment (or re-recruitment) of employees is only a breach of competition law under narrow circumstances

The Regional Court (LG) Koblenz has decided that the recruitment of employees is generally permissible. Even the re-recruitment of employees who have already switched employers is not automatically unlawful.

What is this about?

The judgment of 17.09.2024 (Az. 11 O 12/24) concerns a legal dispute between two competing companies in the field of stationary fire protection systems. The applicant accuses the respondent of deliberately inducing employees who had already concluded employment contracts with her to breach those contracts and not to take up work. The applicant sees this as anti-competitive obstruction (§ 4 Nr. 4 UWG) and applied for an interim injunction to prohibit the respondent, inter alia, from offering bonuses for employees to remain, providing free legal advice and rehiring the affected persons.

What was decided regarding the recruitment of employees?

The court rejected the application. It established that the recruitment of employees is generally permissible and only becomes anti-competitive under special circumstances, such as when it involves unfair means or is intended as targeted obstruction of a competitor. In the case of re-recruitment, the same standards would generally apply. However, this could only apply if the recruitment itself were already compliant with competition law. In the case of anti-competitive recruitment, milder standards would apply in the case of re-recruitment. The applicant could not sufficiently establish on a prima facie basis that the respondent had pursued such an unfair strategy. In particular, there was no evidence of deliberate influence or intentional inducement of employees willing to switch to breach their contracts. The alleged bonus payments and legal advice likewise could not be sufficiently proven as unlawful influence. The court emphasised that companies have no general right to the continued employment of their employees and that employees are free to decide where they wish to work.

Furthermore, the court saw no grounds for the interim injunction, as the applicant had waited too long before submitting the application and thus had itself refuted the urgency presumed under § 12 Abs. 1 UWG. The court based this on the fact that the first resignations of employees willing to switch took place three months before the application was filed.

Overall, the court consequently rejected the application for an interim injunction.

The decision is in line with the established case law on employee recruitment from the highest courts.

Do you have any questions on this topic? Our lawyers and specialist lawyers in competition law at AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart are happy to help you further.