Can I stop my Israeli employee from joining a competitor?

Foreign employers arrive at this question holding a signed twelve-month restraint and a sense that the matter is settled. It is not. Israeli labour courts treat freedom of occupation as a constitutional right and a non-compete clause as something the employer must justify, clause by clause, against what it is actually protecting. The signature is the beginning of the argument rather than the end of it.

---

Detailed Answer

The governing decision is LabourA 164/99 Frumer and Check Point Software Technologies v. Radguard, handed down by the National Labour Court in 2000, and its effect is to make the clause secondary to the interest behind it. The court held that an employee's signature on a restraint is not enough; the restriction must be reasonable and must protect a legitimate interest of the employer, and the categories recognised in practice are a genuine trade secret, special training the employer paid for, special consideration paid specifically for the restraint, and the employee's duty of good faith. Absent one of those, the clause does not survive, however carefully it was drafted. On trade secrets the court set a demanding standard: the information must be held by the employer and not readily accessible, and the employer must identify it specifically, describe it, and show that reasonable measures were taken to keep it confidential. General know-how, industry experience and the professional skill an engineer acquired while working for you are not trade secrets, and Israeli courts say so bluntly. A restraint is also read down rather than read as written: a court will shorten a period, narrow a geographic scope or limit it to named customers rather than strike it out entirely, so the practical question is usually how much of the clause survives rather than whether all of it does.

That pushes the real remedy onto a different statute. Section 5 of the Commercial Torts Law 5759-1999 defines a trade secret as business information not publicly known, whose confidentiality gives its owner a business advantage, and whose owner takes reasonable steps to protect it. Section 6 makes misappropriation of a trade secret a civil wrong, and Section 13 allows the court to award damages of up to NIS 100,000 per tort without proof of any loss, which matters because quantifying the damage from a departing engineer is close to impossible. Foreign employers should build for that route rather than for the restraint. Document what the secret is while the employee still works for you, restrict access on a need-to-know basis, log it, and keep the confidentiality obligation separate from the non-compete so that striking down the second does not take the first with it. Two structural points catch companies outside Israel. Choice-of-law clauses do not rescue you: an Israeli employee working in Israel is covered by Israeli mandatory employment law and the labour courts take jurisdiction whatever the contract says about New York or England. And a garden-leave arrangement with continued salary is treated far more sympathetically than an unpaid restraint, because paying for the period converts it into the special consideration the case law recognises. Where the departing employee also invented something, the ownership and royalty questions run on their own track under the Patents Law service invention rules, and the two claims are usually pleaded together.

In Practice: LabourA 164/99 Frumer and Check Point v. Radguard (2000) requires a legitimate protectable interest before a restraint is enforced, and Sections 5 and 6 of the Commercial Torts Law 5759-1999 carry the trade secret claim with Section 13 allowing up to NIS 100,000 per tort without proof of damage. Applications for an interim injunction are heard by the Regional Labour Court within 7 to 21 days of filing, security for the injunction is normally required, and a full trial runs 12 to 24 months. A paid garden-leave period of three to six months is the arrangement Israeli courts uphold most readily.

When to Consult a Lawyer

• The employee is taking customers rather than technology. Customer lists are protected only where they are genuinely confidential and were compiled at real cost, and a claim framed around a secret that turns out to be a contact list fails and carries costs.
• You want an interim injunction. Israeli labour courts decide these quickly and largely on the affidavits, so the identification of the trade secret and the evidence of protective measures must be complete on day one rather than developed later.
• The employee was engaged through a foreign parent, a contractor agreement or an employer of record. Who may sue, in which forum, and under which law all shift with the structure, and getting that wrong loses the injunction window entirely.

---

Speak With an Israeli Attorney

An Israeli attorney can tell you within a day whether your restraint protects anything an Israeli court will recognise, prepare the trade secret evidence before the employee leaves, and move quickly for an injunction where there is something real to protect.

Contact us for a confidential initial consultation.