Did anyone else read, with a great sigh of relief, the news in The Guardian about the Motley Crue band members signing a pact that means there can be no comeback tours after they play in 72 US cities in 2014 during their "Final Tour"? At least one band understands that "final" should actually mean "final".
It got us thinking about many other scenarios in which society could benefit from a "no more comebacks" arrangement. There'd be a few politicians and the odd ageing sportsman in too-tight short shorts who could be asked to put pen to paper. A well-executed contract could also ensure those tabloid on-again, off-again romances could be just, well, off.
While Motley Crue's move might seem novel, it's not too dissimilar to a practice in the Australian Public Service when an employee voluntarily retires or they are retrenched, taking with them a separation or departure package. In these circumstances, one of the conditions of payment is that the employee agrees they will not seek re-employment or other paid service from a public sector employer for at least three years from their separation date.
It doesn't make sense to do this in the private sector, but it would be great to see an inverse restraint clause challenged under the common law doctrine of restraint of trade, just to hear the arguments about why Joe Alumni couldn't "reasonably" apply for a job at his old company: "we need to protect our client relationships"; "we need to protect staff sanity"; or "we need to protect the viability of this business".
In reality excellent record keeping, open and effective internal communication and robust recruitment practices solve this issue for business.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
