OT : Labor Law question : collusion

SoCal · Mar 29, 2013

I work in the financial industry. There are two big competitors in my city. The owners of each company know each other. Company A, whom i work for, has made a series of poor strategical business choices in the past two years resulting if a significant loss in revenue as well as creating a poor environment for sales people to make money. In fact.. more than half the sales reps failed to meet the minimum benchmark production goals the last several quarters. The sales people have been suffering big time.

Company B maintains the business model that both companies founded their success on many many years ago and they, Co. B, continue to do well and their sales reps do quite well.

In the past ten years employees have occassionally switched from one company to the other for various, personal reasons.

In the last year though... too many employees from Company A started applying at company B to get away from the poor sales environment that mgmt created with their poor choices. At some point, the owner of Co. A got pissed off about losing so many good ales people and got together with the owner at Co. B. They made a silent deal that the thriving Company B would no longer hire people from struggling company A until an employee has been "away" from company A for 30 days. There are even memos over at company B telling employees to stop referring people over from company A for the time being.

This is simply a gentlemen's deal among the two owners.

Here is my question... This silent deal between the two owners has created what i think is collusion. They are preventing workers from making the most money possible by disallowing company A employees from applying at company B until they have been unemployed for at least 30 days. Many people have families and cannot afford to walk away from a job for 30 days when there is no guarantee they will even be hired.

Any attorneys out there that specialize in this type thing? For what it's worth - Company A is owned by one of the largest companies in the USA with deep pockets. I am beyond pissed off and I am wondering if there is a case here.

studmlb55 · Mar 29, 2013

What proof do you have other than this is what you believe is happening?

SoCal · Mar 29, 2013

studmlb55 said:
What proof do you have other than this is what you believe is happening?

emails at company B circulating from their management clearly stating that any referrals from company A will be declined until said employees have been unemployed for 30 days. Also email replies from company B hiring staff stating addressed to employees at company A stating that they cannot accept applications until out of work for 30 days. there is a paper trail. now as far as documentation of the actual agreement between the two owners... no.. that would probably have taken place in their private emails or on the phone.

boxcardrew · Mar 29, 2013

If I remember right, Company B can not refuse an application for any reason. Company B can not deface an application(ie:take notes on it).
It's been a while and I'm not an attorney but I know there are attorneys that specialize in these things. I have been apart of a few class action lawsuits regarding labor laws.

SoCal · Mar 29, 2013

amazingly... I just found a link to an article dated less than 2 mos ago to a similar situation that is currently playing out between employees at EBay and Intuit. Here is the link to the legal analysis :

http://www.weil.com/files/upload/Weil_Employer_Update_February_19_2013.pdf

The relevant highlights : "The DOJ alleges that the agreement was a “handshake” deal by senior executives of both companies, and that this agreement reduced the two competitors’ incentives and ability to compete. The DOJ further alleges that the agreement restricted employee mobility by lowering salaries and benefits that the employees otherwise could have commanded. "

"the DOJ’s contention that the alleged no-hire agreement between eBay and Intuit is a “naked restraint of trade” constituting a “per se” violation of antitrust law"

"Employers should be aware that the DOJ’s Antitrust Division appears keenly focused on industries with a heavy technological focus. The action against eBay follows closely on the heels of a 2010 lawsuit by the government against Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, and Pixar, following an investigation of an alleged series of non-solicitation agreements between the companies, and resulting in a settlement preventing the six companies from entering into such agreements. 2. Also, a putative class action is currently pending against these six companies"

Glad i googled after my OP. What I just read in that link is relevant to what is happening to me and my co-workers right now. This situation has seriously affected the lives of many families at company A. They made HORRIBLE business decisions and now they won't let us go mo the competition to maintain a living in our chosen professions which requires specific skill, training, and licensing. It is very specific.

quantumleap · Mar 30, 2013

Same thing happened to me although this was over 20 years ago. A big bank came in to the medium-sized city I lived near. The other large businesses made a stink about the big bank hiring their workers away so the big bank and the other large businesses entered into a gentlemen's agreement to not hire from each other.

I got a job at the big bank which sucked balls to work at. I applied at other companies but was told I wouldn't be hired since I worked at the big bank. I went to a labor attorney and he said it was not illegal.

My friend offered to put me up in his apartment near Venice Beach so I quit my job and moved in with him and his wife.

One of the ladies I went to high school with quit her job at one of the large companies and was hired by the big bank after she was out of work for 30 days. She could afford it because her husband had a good job but I understand it's not easy for just anyone to do that and also with no guarantee of getting hired by the other company.