In the fall of 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice`s antitrust division announced that as of that date, it “intends to bring criminal action against non-poaching and naked wage cartels.” According to the Cartel Department, “agreements are bare if they are not reasonably necessary for separate and legitimate commercial cooperation between employers… [and] are in themselves illegal because they eliminate competition in the same inextricable way as agreements for the pricing of products or the allocation of customers. Such cases are much less prevalent in Europe, but labour markets are generally considered to be covered by EU competition law.  Therefore, people who behave in the labour markets are anti-competitive may, for example.B. non-poaching or information exchange agreements pursued by national or supranational competition authorities. However, unlike in the United States, cases in Europe were associated with other studies, as labour markets were secondary. In France, for example, in a study on the behaviour of agencies in the product market, the French Competition Council acknowledged that the labour market was also affected, as the agreement increased the costs for companies recruiting temporary workers. As a result, temporary employment companies were fined €94 million in 2009 for coordinated their trade and pricing policy for “big customers”.  In this blog post, Shubham Khunteta, a student at National Law University Odisha, writes about the important agreements made by businessmen to prevent their talented human resources from doing job hopping and protecting their business from unfair competition. He talks in particular about non-solvency and non-poaching agreements, which are very important for every company. The study of demand-side concentration in the labour market could therefore run counter to the traditional role of competition authorities. In fact, no-poaching agreements allow companies to reduce their costs by reducing their personnel costs and can pass this reduction on to end consumers.
In one case , the Delhi Supreme Court stated that the accused, who holds confidential information and data from a bank, cannot be an excuse or a veil to restrict the accused`s rights to seek and seek better employment. The injunction sought by the applicant will immortalize forced labour. It would create a situation in which “once a client of the complainant, always a client of the applicant” is. Such agreements would restrict the professional and intellectual freedom of workers. Firms are generally seen as “buyers” of labour and workers as “suppliers”. .