About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

28 Bus. Law. 1341 (1972-1973)
Enticement of Employees

handle is hein.journals/busl28 and id is 1343 raw text is: Enticement of Employees By ALFRED B. MARTIN* Chicago, Illinois IN THE business world of today, there has been an increasing amount of pirating of employees by offering higher salaries or better working condi- tions. The pirated employer thus loses the benefit of the training and experi- ence of an employee who in some cases received such training and experience at his expense. There have been instances in which an employer with well- trained employees has become the object of a systemized scheme to pirate his employees by company or companies desirous of having these well- trained employees working for them. The result is that the expense in the procurement and training of these employees has gone for naught and been claimed as booty for the pirate-company or companies. The company victimized by such pirating now seeks the advice of its attor- ney as to the legal remedies available to protect against and prevent such pirating in the future. The attorney may instinctively think of a possible vio- lation of the Sherman Act or other anti-trust law, but then realizes that this pirating is not a violation per se and that facts and circumstances would have to be established to show its purpose or effect was to act as an instrument for restraining trade and creating a monopoly. Unless the pirate is a com- petitor of substantial size in a market with few competitors and the damage caused by this pirating is substantial, or unfair methods of enticement are used, any chances of establishing an anti-trust violation are slim. So, the at- torney dismisses the thought of anti-trust violation and pursues the idea that such pirating might be actionable as a competitive tort. INDUCING BREACH OF CONTRACT AS A COMPETITIVE TORT The tort of inducing one to breach his contract with another was first developed in Lumley v. Gye.1 This 1853 case concerned a contract in which a famous singer was obligated (as the court interpreted it) to sing only at the plaintiff's theatre. However, this famous singer was induced by defendant to sing at defendant's theatre. The court determined that the defendant did entice the famous singer to breach her contract with the plaintiff and found for the plaintiff. Although in the Lumley v. Gye case the contract was a service contract, the same theory was later applied to all con- * Member of the Illinois Bar. 1. Lumley v. Gye, 2 Ell. & BI. 216 (1853). 1341

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most