• ITVI.USA
    15,314.590
    184.430
    1.2%
  • OTRI.USA
    24.080
    0.010
    0%
  • OTVI.USA
    15,313.750
    188.540
    1.2%
  • TLT.USA
    2.710
    0.000
    0%
  • TSTOPVRPM.ATLPHL
    3.350
    0.280
    9.1%
  • TSTOPVRPM.CHIATL
    3.090
    0.230
    8%
  • TSTOPVRPM.DALLAX
    1.730
    0.070
    4.2%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXDAL
    3.100
    0.150
    5.1%
  • TSTOPVRPM.PHLCHI
    2.160
    0.120
    5.9%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXSEA
    3.570
    0.220
    6.6%
  • WAIT.USA
    125.000
    -2.000
    -1.6%
  • ITVI.USA
    15,314.590
    184.430
    1.2%
  • OTRI.USA
    24.080
    0.010
    0%
  • OTVI.USA
    15,313.750
    188.540
    1.2%
  • TLT.USA
    2.710
    0.000
    0%
  • TSTOPVRPM.ATLPHL
    3.350
    0.280
    9.1%
  • TSTOPVRPM.CHIATL
    3.090
    0.230
    8%
  • TSTOPVRPM.DALLAX
    1.730
    0.070
    4.2%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXDAL
    3.100
    0.150
    5.1%
  • TSTOPVRPM.PHLCHI
    2.160
    0.120
    5.9%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXSEA
    3.570
    0.220
    6.6%
  • WAIT.USA
    125.000
    -2.000
    -1.6%
Legal issuesLogisticsNewsTop StoriesTrucking

Anti-poaching deal between logistics firms unenforceable, Pa. high court rules

Agreement undermines free competition in the labor market in the shipping and logistics industry

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a no-hire provision between two Pittsburgh-based logistics firms is not enforceable under commonwealth law.

In its decision, the high court affirmed a Superior Court ruling that found the “no-hire, no-poach” agreement between freight broker Pittsburgh Logistics Systems (PLS) and Beemac Trucking, headquartered in Ambridge, Pennsylvania, was an unreasonable restriction of free trade.

“The no-hire provision undermines free competition in the labor market in the shipping and  logistics industry, which creates a likelihood of harm to the general public,” Justice Sallie Mundy wrote in the opinion. 

What happened?

In 2010, PLS required Beemac to enter into a no-poach agreement, stating that the companies would not hire or recruit each other’s employees during the time covered by the contract and for two years after its termination.

PLS filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Court in Pennsylvania in 2016, claiming Beemac had violated the “no-poach” agreement by hiring four of its employees.

The court sided with Beemac, ruling that PLS’ enforcement of the no-hire provision “would have deprived its former employees of their current jobs and livelihoods.”

“We believe these types of no-hire contracts should be void against public policy because they essentially force a non-compete agreement on employees of companies without their consent, or even knowledge, in some cases,” the court ruled. 

California freight forwarder folds, files Chapter 7 bankruptcy
Truckers, brokers owed hundreds of thousands after Indiana company’s bankruptcy
Road Doctor owner accused of paving way for luxury cars with PPP loan

Click for more articles by Clarissa Hawes.

Clarissa Hawes, Senior Editor, Investigations and Enterprise

Clarissa has covered all aspects of the trucking industry for 14 years. She is an award-winning journalist known for her investigative and business reporting. Before joining FreightWaves, she wrote for Land Line Magazine and Trucks.com. If you have a news tip or story idea, send her an email to chawes@freightwaves.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

We are glad you’re enjoying the content

Sign up for a free FreightWaves account today for unlimited access to all of our latest content