This аppeal involves a covenant in an employment contract prohibiting competition after termination of the еmployment. The action is in equity and we review de novo.
Baker v. Starkey,
From the evidence we find the facts as follows. Russell Buchanan has had about twenty-three years experience in the petroleum business. Approximately ten years ago he established plaintiff Mа & Pa, Inc., in Oskaloosa, Iowa, to sell petroleum products and some other lines. The corporation operatеs mainly in central and southeast Iowa. Through work, ability, and investment of capital, Buchanan developed a thriving business. At the time in question Ma & Pa had customers in some ninety-seven municipalities. Sales personnel of Ma & Pa were required to sign a covenant not to compete upon termination of employment.
A major part of the business is the sale through a salesperson of petroleum products to bulk users such as factories and transportation firms. Ma & Pa had developed established customers and also continually strove to obtain new ones.
Defendant Robert J. Kelly, Jr., had experience in sales work but not in petroleum sаles. After investigation, Buchanan hired Kelly in July 1979 on salary and commission to work for Ma & Pa as salesman of bulk petroleum products. Buchanan told Kelly he would have to sign an agreement not to compete. Subsequently Kelly did sign such a covenant, which states:
In consideration of mutual promises and employment terms, Employee agrees that on termination of his employment with Employer for any cause whatever, he will not, directly or indirectly, engage in any manner whatsoever in the retail and wholesale sales and distribution of petroleum products, or any other line of business in which the employer may then be engaged, within a twenty-five mile radius of аny then current operations of the Employer for a period of three years.
Buchanan taught Kelly the business, revealed tо him the customer lists, and provided him with suppliers’ informational literature for study. Kelly proved to be a valuable asset to the business, аnd did well. He contacted old and potential customers and achieved good sales results throughout Ma & Pa’s territory. An importаnt element of the salesperson-customer relationship is trust and confidence, and Kelly developed rapport with the trade.
In 1982 a change in market conditions and product margins occurred in the petroleum industry. Ma & Pa could not continue with Kelly’s commissions as written: Kelly made money on his sales but Ma & Pa lost money. Ma & Pa dismissed Kelly, and in the process Buchanan reminded Kelly of his covenant not tо compete.
Kelly took a job with a competing oil company. Representing that company, he contactеd customers of Ma & Pa, underbid it, and took business away from it, including some of its largest customers. Ma & Pa thereupon commenced this action to enforce the covenant not to compete. The trial court granted an injunction accordingly. Kelly appealed.
In recent years this court has considered several covenants prohibiting competition incidental to еmployment contracts. Decisions upholding such covenants or ordering trial on them include
Tasco, Inc. v. Winkel,
We summarized the applicable principles as follows in
Iowa Glass Depot, Inc. v. Jindrich,
The general rule in Iowa is that wе will enforce a noncompetitive provision in an employment contract if the covenant is reasonably necеssary for the protection of the employer’s business and is not unreasonably restrictive of the employee’s rights nor prejudiсial to the public interest. Our rule is analogous to the Restatement rule which provides that a noncompetitive agreement is unreasonably in restraint of trade if “(a) the restraint is greater than is needed to protect the promisee’s legitimate interеst or (b) the promisee’s need is outweighed by the hardship to promisor and the likely injury to the public.” Essentially, these rules require us to aрply a reasonableness standard in maintaining a proper balance between the interests of the employer and thе employee. Although we must afford fair protection to the business interests of the employer, the restriction on the emplоyee must be no greater than necessary to protect the employer. Moreover, the covenant must not be oрpressive or create hardships on the employee out of proportion to the benefits the employer may be expected to gain. The burden of proving reasonableness is upon the employer who seeks to enforce such a covenant.
A factor in this case not present in most cases is the discharge of Kelly by Ma & Pa as distinguished from a resignation originating with Kelly. Under some circumstances termination of the employment by Ma
&
Pa would not invalidate the covenant not to compete.
See Wark v. Ervin Press Corp.,
Other factors in the case, although not decisive in themselves, militate against the grant of an injunction. An injunсtion would work severe hardship on Kelly and his family. Selling is his only skill; he tried to find employment for three weeks before he located thе other job; and his
*503
employment with Ma & Pa was terminated during recession. Ma & Pa did not show at trial that it tried to renegotiate Kelly’s employment contract. The employment was at will, enabling Ma & Pa to terminate it at any time and assert the clause prohibiting competition.
See Rousana Co. v. Garland,
Ma & Pa is correct that it did not breach the contract and is not disentitled to rely on the non-competition clause on that aсcount. It is also right that the clause recites “on the termination of his employment with Employer for any cause whatev-er_” Morеover, Ma & Pa did not terminate the contract without any cause; it lost money on Kelly’s sales. Nonetheless, the case is in equity, and upon weighing the equities on both sides in our de novo review we conclude that the trial court should not have granted the injunction. See Blake, Employee Agreements Not To Compete, 73 Harv.L.Rev. 625, 684-86 (1960).
REVERSED.