February 25, 2015

In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Menard, Inc. and Blake R. Conde.

Tom Olson and Jackie Rubi successfully defended a claim against hardware and lumber corporation Menard, Inc.  Menard’s brought an arbitration claim against a former Menard’s employee (Conde), who left Menard’s in 2012.  Conde worked for a division of Menard’s called Midwest Manufacturing. Briefly, his job for Menard’s was to make house calls to repair Midwest Manufacturing products under warranty (mostly doors) and to view and report on store displays and inventory in that same category. His employment agreement with Menard’s contained a non-compete provision which, among other things, prohibited Conde from recruiting Menard’s employees to work anywhere else for a period of two years after Conde left Menard’s employ.  Conde left Menard’s in 2012 to work in sales and management for a company that specializes in the production of commercial paint booths (and did not compete with Menard’s).  Over the next two years, at least three former Menard’s employees left Menard’s for jobs with Conde’s new employer.  In 2014, Menard’s brought an arbitration claim against Conde, claiming over $25,000 in damages for breaching the no-recruitment provision of Conde’s employment agreement with Menard’s.  Menard’s contended that Conde recruited those employees to leave positions with Menard’s to join Conde’s new place of employment.  Olson and Rubi argued that Menard’s failed to show that Conde recruited or solicited anyone, and that’s is showing that Conde knew the three employees and told them he liked his new job in social settings did not reasonably amount to recruitment or solicitation. Olson and Rubi also argued that the non-compete in question was an unenforceable and unreasonable restriction of an employee in an employment contract under Wis. Stat. 103.465.  After a two day hearing, the arbitrator held that Menard’s failed to show that the Conde breached his contract.