ameri resources


Need an office in metro Detroit, Alabama or Toronto? Office suites, meeting rooms, virtual offices, network access




free downloads
USA: "Inside the U.S. Government's Much-Anticipated FCPA Guide" Client Alert

USA: "Inside the U.S. Government's Much-Anticipated FCPA Guide". 13-page Client Alert by Baker & McKenzie.

proceed to download
eJournals





back to index backAMERItalk November,  2016


U.S.: Employer Beware: Antitrust Enforcement Agencies Set Their Sights on Anti-Competitive Hiring and Compensation Agreements

The Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the two federal agencies responsible for enforcing the antitrust laws, have issued a Guidance” document for HR Professionals, outlining the types of compensation and hiring agreements that the enforcement agencies will challenge as violations of the antitrust laws. The Guidance document does not represent a change in antitrust law, but it does represent a clear signal that the agencies are placing unprecedented importance on policing such agreements. The Guidance document is blunt:

Going forward, the DOJ intends to proceed criminally against naked wage-fixing or no-poaching agreements. These types of agreements eliminate competition in the same irredeemable way as agreements to fix product prices or allocate customers, which have traditionally been criminally investigated and prosecuted as hardcore cartel conduct. Accordingly, the DOJ will criminally investigate allegations that employers have agreed among themselves on employee compensation or not to solicit or hire each others’ employees. And if that investigation uncovers a naked [1] wage-fixing or no-poaching agreement, the DOJ may, in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, bring criminal, felony charges against the culpable participants in the agreement, including both individuals and companies.

What Types of Agreements Create Antitrust Risks

The types of agreements in question are agreements between competing employers, in antitrust lingo, horizontal agreements.”[2] It is important to note that in employment markets your competitors are those who employ similar types of employees, regardless of whether you compete for customers. For example, aerospace companies and automotive companies are likely competitors for certain types of engineers, even though they don’t compete for customers.

Horizontal agreements which directly restrict competition on salary, benefits or other terms of employment are highly likely to violate the antitrust laws. Likewise, non-hire, non-solicitation or similar I’ll stay away from yours if you stay away from mine” agreements are highly likely to violate the antitrust laws. Antitrust law condemns most agreements restricting hiring or compensation as anti-competitive because they create a high likelihood of suppressing compensation and reducing employee mobility, without offsetting pro-competitive benefits. Other types of agreements, such as exchanging current or planned compensation information with competitors also create material antitrust risks, although not as clearly unlawful as the agreements described above.

The risks of these types of employment practices are not merely hypothetical, as a variety of employers have painfully learned in recent years. In the most prominent case, a who’s who of Silicon Valley companies, including Google, Apple, Intel and others, allegedly entered into various types of no-poaching” agreements.  They were sued both by the government and by employees in a class action suit. They ultimately paid more than $400 million to effected employees to settle the class action lawsuits. Similarly, this month, Dreamworks paid $50 million to settle a similar lawsuit alleging a no-poaching” agreement for animators. Similar lawsuits regarding no-poaching” were recently filed against Samsung and LG. Likewise, a group of competing hospitals who exchanged nursing compensation information paid approximately $90 million to nurses to settle class action lawsuits. Importantly, the thrust of the nurses’ claim was that the exchange of information suppressed wages, even if there was no actual agreement as to wages.[3]

The Ancillary Agreement Exception

Although horizontal agreements restricting hiring or compensation are usually unlawful, there is an important exception for ancillary” agreements. In broad terms, ancillary agreements are agreements that are related to, and important to, a pro-competitive primary business agreement. More specifically, an ancillary agreement is generally lawful if: (1) The Primary Agreement is pro-competitive; (2) the Ancillary Agreement is reasonably necessary to the Primary Agreement; (3) there is not a so substantially less restrictive alternative; and (4) any anti-competitive harm does not outweigh the pro-competitive benefits. For example, if two companies agree to collaborate on the development of a new product, then an agreement prohibiting one party from hiring key employees of the other involved in the collaboration for a reasonable period of time might be a lawful ancillary agreement.

Risk Management

The prudent employer should take a variety of steps to manage the antitrust risks in hiring and compensation

- Most importantly, recognize that hiring and compensation practices are a primary area of antitrust risk that should be part of any antitrust compliance program.

- Effectively train the people on the front lines of hiring and compensation decision making.

- Do not enter into agreements with competitors concerning compensation, recruiting or hiring without the advice of experienced antitrust counsel.

- Do not participate in wage surveys or other exchanges of compensation information without understanding the applicable safe harbor.

[1] A naked” agreement is one which is not ancillary” to another pro-competitive agreement. The ancillary agreement exception is discussed later in this Alert.
[2] The Guidance does not apply to vertical” agreements between employers and employees, although those too present important, though different, legal risks.
[3] The exchange of compensation information is not always unlawful and indeed, the enforcement agencies have defined safe harbor practices that will protect from liability.

Source: Butzel - GAI





previous page

go top
search our site


Loading

AMERItalk

Other articles from the same issue (November,  2016).

The Economic Implications of Potential NHTSA and EPA Regulatory Revisions on U.S. Light Truck Sales and Manufacturing
play read on

North America Autos: Q3 Build Finishes Ahead of Estimates; Inventory Being Addressed
play read on

Canadian Auto Industry Worth Investing In, Says Parts Association
play read on

US SAAR Likely Finishes Ahead of Estimates for Second Consecutive Month
play read on

Canada auto deals secure plants for now, longer-term uncertain
play read on

Apple is developing automotive software in Canada with former BlackBerry employees
play read on

Tech & Car Companies Resist California's Proposed Autonomous Vehicle Rules
play read on

Experts release new roadmap for US robotics
play read on

Keeping Up With Advanced Manufacturing
play read on

The chief legal officer and the board: Dealing with challenges in a challenging role
play read on

Supply Chain Strategies For A Post-Global World
play read on

Worried about China, the US pushes for homegrown chip development
play read on

U.S.: Use of Non-Compete Agreements – Too Much of a Good Thing?
play read on

Moody's: Outlook for the North American manufacturing industry remains negative
play read on

The Trans-Pacific Partnership and U.S. Trade Policy
play read on

NAFTA costs U.S. manufacturing jobs, but so does China
play read on

The reindustrialization of America
play read on

U.S.: Social Security Wage Base Increase 7% for 2017
play read on

What’s In Store for EB-5?
play read on

Getting Ahead of the Megatrends in Transportation and Logistics
play read on

U.S.: Employer Beware: Antitrust Enforcement Agencies Set Their Sights on Anti-Competitive Hiring and Compensation Agreements
play read on

The “What’s in it for my business” approach to Next Manufacturing
play read on

Looking to Canada to Satisfy Your Workforce Needs
play read on

U.S. Court of Appeals upholds ELD mandate, denies OOIDA’s request
play read on

Canada: CPP expands, affecting employer pension plans; Ontario plan dropped
play read on

The 10 Worst (and Best!) US Airports for TSA Security Delays
play read on

U.S.: NLRB Continues to Click “Dislike” on Social Media Policies
play read on


Our Free eJournals
GlobalAutoExperts

To visit GlobalAutoExperts Directory, click here.


©2008 GlobalAutoIndustry.com | HCI Group, Ltd.
101 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 1400 | Troy, MI 48084 USA
USA Tel: +1.248.687.1060 | USA Fax: +1.248.927.0347
Fax UK: +44.(0)845.127.4765 | Fax Europe: +31.20.524.1659 | Fax Asia: +852.3015.8120