Konkurrenzklausel im Schafspelz

In dieser Folge unseres Arbeitsrechts-Podcasts erörtern Matthias Unterrieder und Anna Schwamberger ein aktuelles Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs (OGH, 27. Mai 2026, 9 ObA 6/26m), das neue Grenzen für Mitarbeiterschutzklauseln in Arbeitsverträgen setzt. Das Urteil ist insbesondere für Arbeitgeber von Bedeutung, die nachvertragliche Beschränkungen ihrer Mitarbeiter einsetzen, um ihre Belegschaft davor zu schützen, von ausscheidenden Arbeitnehmern gezielt abgeworben zu werden.

Non-compete clause in sheep’s clothing

In this episode of our Arbeitsrecht podcast, Matthias Unterrieder and Anna Schwamberger discuss a recent decision by the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH, 27 May 2026, 9 ObA 6/26m), which sets new limits on employee protection clauses in employment contracts. The ruling is particularly relevant for employers that rely on post-employment restrictions to protect their workforce from being targeted by departing employees. 

What are employee protection clauses? 

Employee protection clauses typically aim to prevent former employees from soliciting or recruiting former colleagues after leaving an organisation. From an employer’s perspective, such clauses help safeguard workforce stability, preserve team structures and prevent key personnel from being drawn away by former employees who have built relationships during their employment. 

Traditionally, these clauses have been regarded as distinct from non-compete agreements. While a non-compete clause restricts a former employee’s professional activities after termination, employee protection clauses generally focus on targeting former colleagues rather than restricting employment with competing businesses. 

What happened in this particular case?

The former employer sought contractual penalties for alleged breaches of the employee protection clause, as well as separate customer protection and non-compete provisions. As the wording of the employee protection clause was quite broad, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that it closely resembled a restriction on professional activity and therefore had to be assessed under the legal framework applicable to non-compete clauses. As not all requirements for an enforceable non-compete clause were met, the clause was held to be invalid. 

Key takeaways for employers 

The decision highlights the importance of careful drafting and maintaining a clear distinction between different forms of post-contractual restrictions. Combining multiple objectives in a single, broadly worded clause increases the risk that the entire provision will be viewed as excessively restrictive and therefore unenforceable.