Anchor responds

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

motobrewer

I'm no atheist scientist, but...
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
8,325
Reaction score
507
Location
Thiensville
Can't read the link at work for some reason, but from what I understand, an employee signed a non-disclosure agreement of some sort, and then after leaving Boston Beer Co., he was hired by Anchor.

From a business standpoint, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this lawsuit. Yes, many can argue that Boston Beer Co. should lighten up and help out fellow brewers for the greater good, or that they're just trying to strong arm everyone thinking they're the know-all be-all of home brewing and have forgotten where they've come from. However, regardless of that, it's actually a very black and white issue. Did the employee sign a non-disclosure agreement while employed at Boston Beer Co.? If yes, then he breached that contract and by law, Boston Beer Co. has every right to sue.

The argument should not be about the lawsuit, it should be about signing non-disclosure agreements to begin with, if you want to argue to principles behind it.


BTW, if this is not even close to what the article is about, please let me know so I can delete this post and stop embarrassing myself. Thanks lol.
 
US law is clearly different to SA law but how is it possible that Boston can sue Anchor for a contract breached by an employee ? The contract wasn't signed by Anchor.
 
US law is clearly different to SA law but how is it possible that Boston can sue Anchor for a contract breached by an employee ? The contract wasn't signed by Anchor.

I can't get into specifics since I'm not a lawyer, but I am familiar with some similar situations in my field. I know they can sue the actual ex-employee... not sure about the specifics about being able to sue Anchor as well, however.
 
Did the employee sign a non-disclosure agreement while employed at Boston Beer Co.? If yes, then he breached that contract and by law, Boston Beer Co. has every right to sue.

The argument should not be about the lawsuit, it should be about signing non-disclosure agreements to begin with, if you want to argue to principles behind it.

I think it was a non-compete clause, not a non-disclosure clause: http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2011/09/27/boston-beer-sues-rival-over-employee.html

According to this article, such clauses are hard to enforce. However, it wouldn't be good for Boston Beer if they didn't try to enforce the contracts that they sign.
 
And some folks on here are shocked to find out that the craft beer industry can be just as "nasty" and cut throat as the "evil empire" that is BMC. :rolleyes:


This is why I have no desire to "Go Pro". Brewing is no longer fun. It is a business.

THIS!!! + 1,000

I ruined a vocation (ministry) by "going pro"...I can relate.

Let me see, If I want to brew beer,

1) I can brew what I want, when I want to, and with what ingredients I want to.
2) I can go off script (off recipe) and toss in whatever crap I want to without worrying about sales figures and marketing plans.
3) I can sleep in, get started around 10 am, have the football game on and get totally pi$$ed if I want, and if I forget a hop addition I haven't cost the company several million dollars.
4) I don't have to start at the crack of dawn, wear waders and much out several thousand pounds of stinky grain from yesterdays brew session before I can get started dumping in several thousand pounds of more grain into the tun.
5) I can hang out with a bunch of friends all day in the beautiful outdoors standing around our turkey fryers breathing fresh air instead of being stuck in a hot factory all day (Because a commercial brewery is STILL just a glorified factory.)
6)I don't have to deal with supervisors, pencil necked geeks in accounting, marketing wonks, and anyone else that might annoy me.
7) I get to say proudly that my HOBBY is HOMEBREWING, instead of saying "I work in a brewery, but my hobby/passion is.......(Something other than brewing...) ;)
 
Based on a little knowledge, if a non-compete goes to court, the employer must prove that the employee has the potential to damage business by working for a "competitor." Based on the last few Sam's I've had, Jim and his boys may want to spend a little more time in Quality Control and less time in court - they're damaging their own brand more than this guy.
 
So, by signing a non-disclosure or a non-compete you are essentially agreeing that you will never work for another company in the same/similar industry as the company you signed with?

Do I understand this correctly?

BBC is sueing because a guy, having OTJE in beer, left and then later got hired by another beer co?
 
So, by signing a non-disclosure or a non-compete you are essentially agreeing that you will never work for another company in the same/similar industry as the company you signed with?

Do I understand this correctly?

BBC is sueing because a guy, having OTJE in beer, left and then later got hired by another beer co?

Its going to drag through the courts because its a mess from everything I've read. Basically, he's got knowledge of BBC's sales information. Not brewing experience, as far as I can tell. He's a salesman. Oh, and FWIW - non compete agreements arent valid in California. Isnt that where Anchor is based?
 
Its going to drag through the courts because its a mess from everything I've read. Basically, he's got knowledge of BBC's sales information. Not brewing experience, as far as I can tell. He's a salesman. Oh, and FWIW - non compete agreements arent valid in California. Isnt that where Anchor is based?

I never said anything about brewing. Only experience in beer. Which on the scale of BBC can cover, prolly, dozens to 100's of specialized fields.
 
Gila, usually the non-compete clauses are for a period, say two years. It does seem ridiculous to tell a beer salesman that he can't work for another beer company because he would be using the connections he made on behalf of BBC.
 
Gone are the days when one did business with a handshake and a gentlemens agreement. These days we've got to have contracts that are 100 pages long and they still get broken.
Regardless of what the guys position was, he signed the contract and then broke it. Hes the one in the wrong.
I guess its human nature to always side with the underdog ?
 
So, by signing a non-disclosure or a non-compete you are essentially agreeing that you will never work for another company in the same/similar industry as the company you signed with?

Do I understand this correctly?

Usually ND/NC agreements are for a certain amount of time. Like a year, the longest I've heard is like 3 and that's if it's within a same regional market. This happens a lot in radio for on air talent, you can take a job in another state/market but you often can't just jump to another station in the same city without cooling your heels for a year.

I've had them for both the Audiovisual industry and even ministry.

The only one that was almost an issue for me was in AV. I was working for a National Audiovisual company that subcontracted for AV services in hotels. I got offered my old position back at the medical school, that I had left when I left the state for seminary. I almost technically violated my ND/NC agreement that I signed as the manager of the dept at the hotel BUT since I was actually going to work at what was considered a "Not for profit" I wasn't going to be in direct competition with the company I was leaving.

I think the biggest thing I think they were worried about was me taking their "client list" with me.

It's probably not too different for that sales guy. They don't want him contacting his old clients and trying to lure them away. It's sometimes just the silliest worries.

For me it wasn't like even if I did go to another hotel servicing AV company I would be trying to hustle my old clients to come to the new hotel for meetings, I really had little or no control over who chose to have a meeting where, that was the sales department of the hotel that did all the bookings.
 
Gone are the days when one did business with a handshake and a gentlemens agreement. These days we've got to have contracts that are 100 pages long and they still get broken.
Regardless of what the guys position was, he signed the contract and then broke it. Hes the one in the wrong.
I guess its human nature to always side with the underdog ?

That makes sense, Bru, but the world is often more complicated than that. For example, if you're a job seeker in a very tough market, you get a job offer but have to sign a contract with a non-compete clause, who has the power? You don't really have the option of saying no.

And then there's the question of whether the provision is legal or enforceable. As noted above, California has said that non-compete clauses aren't allowed (I don't know that, just repeating the above poster).
 
Gone are the days when one did business with a handshake and a gentlemens agreement. These days we've got to have contracts that are 100 pages long and they still get broken.

When contracts are 100 pages long, how can they not be broken? They're built to fail.
 
Did you notice that the employee is a 25 year old salesman?

Yep. Likely some kid that got offered more cash to work for Anchor and didn't bother to read his contract when he signed.

That's the breaks....you need to READ your contract and be prepared to live up to it. Otherwise there are going to be repercussions.
 
Non competes have been around for many years.

The only way BBC can win a lawsuit against Anchor is if they can prove that there was any incentive for the employee to leave and take the new position.

Also, BBC can and will sue the employee for breaking the non compete, and the lawsuit will be filed on the East Coast.

As a salesperson, he surely can be sued for using the contacts he made while working for BBC against them while working for Anchor. As the holder of the agreement, they are also allowed to terminate that agreement at will. So they can pick and choose who they allow to leave and where they go for the term of the agreement. That agreement was signed by the employee after all, and they agree to those terms in advance.

In Marketing and Sales, your network is your livelihood, and it's a valuable asset for the company. It's the employee's decision to risk being sued for breaking the agreement they signed.
 
That makes sense, Bru, but the world is often more complicated than that. For example, if you're a job seeker in a very tough market, you get a job offer but have to sign a contract with a non-compete clause, who has the power? You don't really have the option of saying no.

And then there's the question of whether the provision is legal or enforceable. As noted above, California has said that non-compete clauses aren't allowed (I don't know that, just repeating the above poster).




Your general point is

Very true. If he's been a beer salesman for 25 years, and is looking for more work after leaving BBC, with a niche such as that, I'd imagine it'd be hard to find a job for a while OUTSIDE of what's covered in your NC clause. It's not like he's, for example, a mechanic, where his skillset can land him a job in many different industry fields performing different tasks. If he was a beer salesman, he knows how to sell beer and do it well. Only so many positions out there for that.

Interestingly enough, if either company did not distribute on each others' turf (so to speak), this would most likely be a non-issue.
 
The wording of the non-compete is very important in such disputes and we don't have this to read (plus, you know, the facts).
 
The wording of the non-compete is very important in such disputes and we don't have this to read (plus, you know, the facts).

Right. There's a reason most large companies have their own lawyers to draft up their own contracts and clauses. Obviously they are in place to protect the company as a whole. Each company is different and each company's interests are different. Therefore, each NC will most likely be different from situation to situation and company to company. Right now, the only info we have is what the news is reporting to us... which... well, I think we all know should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
Most of the time trade restraints are too broad eg "you cannot work as a plumber again' - these aren't enforced because they prevent the person from earning a living. The ones that get enforced state a reasonable period and a geographical area.
The employee needs to show that the contract is not reasonable. The first thing the court will ask is - if its unreasonable why did you sign it.
 
My respect for the Boston Beer Company continues to plummet. Non-compete clauses are a fact of life, but I consider them inherently unethical and un-American when they restrict an individual's freedom to work where and for whom s/he chooses.
 
Non-compete clauses are pretty standard in manufacturing. Actually, their fairly standard anymore in a lot of industries. I had to sign one in my current job. Basically says I can't work for a competitor for 1 year after leaving the company. And believe me, I'm no big shot at the company. BBC obviously has to pursue it based on principle, but it's still a d*ck move.
 
Right or wrong, it's kind of hard for BBC to claim craft brewer status anymore. It might be a misplaced romanticism, but IMO any legal disputes among real craft brewers should be able to be resolved through a plane ticket and a couple of pints.

Not that it'll make a difference, but BBC won't see another dime from me.
 
It's not a dick move IMO. The company invests in training, and advancing a skillset for their employees, and it's only natural that they would not want to spend the time and money to improve their employee just to see them turn around and work for someone else.

How would you feel if you spent $15,000 on a certificate for your employee and a few weeks later they take that certificate to a competitor? You've just paid their employee's training!

The same kind of thing can happen with salespeople, where the company spends (sometimes) large amounts of $$ to entertain customers and train salespeople to collect business. Once that salesperson builds a relationship with the customers, it's an asset they've bought. They need to protect their investment for a reasonable amount of time after the person leaves the company (unless they are fired).
 
Right or wrong, it's kind of hard for BBC to claim craft brewer status anymore. It might be a misplaced romanticism, but IMO any legal disputes among real craft brewers should be able to be resolved through a plane ticket and a couple of pints.

Not that it'll make a difference, but BBC won't see another dime from me.

Remember, all of our info is coming from news sources and I can guarantee you we don't have the whole story. How do we know that BBC did not try to be civil at first and make one or more requests in person, or in writing, that addressed the clause he signed? How do we know they didn't try to settle any disagreements outside the courts? I'm all for the little guy against the big corporation, but that doesn't necessarily mean the corporation is wrong and the little guy is right.
 
Exactly - it's not like a brewmaster jumped ship. The guy is a district salesman. He pissed Jim off, I'd venture...

Trade secrets aren't just limited to recipes and techniques. He'd be very knowledgeable about upcoming expansion plans, future BBC strategy, marketing campaigns and directions, upcoming product lines, collaborations, etc... This is exactly one of the main purposes behind non-competition clauses: to prevent a person from leaving a company and immediately spilling all they know to a competitor for a "signing bonus" and a similar job.
 
Back
Top