SAWIRELESS

W

WAZZAP WISP

New Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
hi
Does any one know the company called SAWIRELESS? They are busy stealing equipment from high sites, we have just opened a case against them at the police and would like to invite others who also lost equipment to Sawireless to also do so at this time
 
Last edited:
I have seen this happen many times, should install cameras on the nodes...

EDIT:

Also, is there more to this? I moved equipment which miraculously appeared on space I’m renting. I know many in this game, never heard of WAZZAP before...

Also, I’m not a WISP, only fixed line solutions.
 
Last edited:
I am only a forumnite and will comment on certain thing out of place. I am not in the WISP industry… But, I do work with various IT / ISP / WISP and Engineering companies in outsourcing relationships. Yes, I do manage a private WUG which is not connected to any other network.

You should be careful with this:

“If the Sales Rep or Technician decides to leave the mutual partnership with SA Wireless, this person is not allowed to start their own Wireless company for 2 years or be employed by another Wireless company for 6 months as installation procedures, infrastructure, service providers and operational knowledge of SA Wireless is shared openly with the Sales Reps and Technicians”

This is accountable for all industries; you cannot withhold any person from an income… You can also not control any person… Should you have another opinion, please state this by law. This can be applicable to secrecy, but this is not covered in WISPS. I will support the fact that by leaking information he/she is sabotaging, but that must be proven.
 
+1 @ Fulcrum29.
There is a difference between a clause in your contract with reference to this and contractually trying to prohibit a person from making an income. Generally companies that do this, provide a financial payout to the person as a result of this "loss of income"....
 
Fulcrum29 said:
I am only a forumnite and will comment on certain thing out of place. I am not in the WISP industry… But, I do work with various IT / ISP / WISP and Engineering companies in outsourcing relationships. Yes, I do manage a private WUG which is not connected to any other network.

You should be careful with this:

“If the Sales Rep or Technician decides to leave the mutual partnership with SA Wireless, this person is not allowed to start their own Wireless company for 2 years or be employed by another Wireless company for 6 months as installation procedures, infrastructure, service providers and operational knowledge of SA Wireless is shared openly with the Sales Reps and Technicians”

This is accountable for all industries; you cannot withhold any person from an income… You can also not control any person… Should you have another opinion, please state this by law. This can be applicable to secrecy, but this is not covered in WISPS. I will support the fact that by leaking information he/she is sabotaging, but that must be proven.
Click to expand...

Restraint of trade in South African law is very well developed - in this instance the restraint seems reasonable IMO since the ex-employee is able to derive an income from another IT related field, the skills of which one would hope the ex-employee has in any case.

Burden of proof also falls on the employee to prove that the restraint is unreasonable (if I recall my contract law correctly).
 
froot said:
+1 @ Fulcrum29.
There is a difference between a clause in your contract with reference to this and contractually trying to prohibit a person from making an income. Generally companies that do this, provide a financial payout to the person as a result of this "loss of income"....
Click to expand...

You sir are in fact correct.
 
hambone said:
Restraint of trade in South African law is very well developed - in this instance the restraint seems reasonable IMO since the ex-employee is able to derive an income from another IT related field, the skills of which one would hope the ex-employee has in any case.

Burden of proof also falls on the employee to prove that the restraint is unreasonable (if I recall my contract law correctly).
Click to expand...

Yes, but then the employer should have a Restraint of Trade and Confidentiality Agreement with the employee, this is a separate document. This does have limits and the employee may conclude that this restraint is unreasonable. Also, the client may approach the ex-employee for services and not the other way around if such an agreement has taken place. The grace period usually confirmed on will be supported by the ex-employer as Froot said. Also companies may not own your intellectual property…

Say the ex-employee can ONLY find employment at his ex-employers competition, then he cannot be prohibited to work there. Should he according to the Restraint of Trade work in another field, the ex-employer should compensate him until he/she is employed.

I would like this to be confirmed by someone on this forum which is in law…

The only reason I named this in the start is that I have seen this happen before where the ex-employee walked out with a smile on his face. Corporate Sabotage is another topic and can prevent an ex-employee from ever enjoying life.

I am in three (actually two) trades; IT, sales and marketing. You should see how things are in product development… CRAZY! regarding this matter.
 
I believe its Reddy v Siemens that will clear up many of your questions - I'll look over it again and wrap my mind around it before responding more completely.

EDIT:

Say the ex-employee can ONLY find employment at his ex-employers competition, then he cannot be prohibited to work there. Should he according to the Restraint of Trade work in another field, the ex-employer should compensate him until he/she is employed.
Click to expand...

If the ex-employee is in a profession that is so specific and has limited options of employees then the restraint will be considered unreasonable and therefore a valid, but unenforceable agreement/contract. As for compensation - I shall investigate.
 
Last edited:
hambone said:
I believe its Reddy v Siemens that will clear up many of your questions - I'll look over it again and wrap my mind around it before responding more completely.

EDIT:



If the ex-employee is in a profession that is so specific and has limited options of employees then the restraint will be considered unreasonable and therefore a valid, but unenforceable agreement/contract. As for compensation - I shall investigate.
Click to expand...

Thanks, it would surely be appreciated to be informed on such a matter. Personally I only experienced employees conquering their ex-employers in these situations. Thankfully, I have never been involved in such a case.
 
There are countless instances where the company has paid an employee to sign a restraint of trade, but this is not payment to offset the eventuality that the restraint would render the employee unemployable, but rather to level the bargaining so that the restraint would have more chance of standing up in court (Maclear Financial Services v Human) and, most importantly, committal by the company to the agreement to secure trade secrets and such (Metcash Trading Africa (Pty) Ltd v Pauls). The company is under no obligation to compensate the employee should he be unable to find work (at a non-competing company) as a result of the Restraint of Trade, but may at their discretion, choose to compensate the employee for the time he is unemployable by way of the Restraint of Trade. I would certainly do this, especially considering that the restraint of trade would be unenforceable anyway since it would unreasonably limit the employees freedom to trade and work.

Some other pertinent quotes I took down whilst procrastinating and avoiding thesis writing appear below, for interest sake.

J Louw and Co (Pty) Ltd v Richter and others:

Covenants in restraint of trade are valid. Like all other contractual stipulations, however, they are unenforceable when, and to the extent that, their enforcement would be contrary to public policy. It is against public policy to enforce a covenant which is unreasonable, one which unreasonably restricts the covenantor’s freedom to trade or to work. In so far as it has that effect, the covenant will not therefore be enforced. Whether it is indeed unreasonable must be determined with reference to the circumstances of the case. Such circumstances are not limited to those that existed when the parties entered into the covenant. Account must also be taken of what has happened since then and, in particular, of the situation prevailing at the time enforcement is sought.
Click to expand...


A lovely tidbit on so-called 'intellectual property' from Highlands Park Football Club Ltd v Viljoen and Another:

… a man’s aptitudes, his skill, his dexterity and his manual and mental ability are not his master’s property but his own. They are himself. The master cannot buy them other than during the period of service.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Hambone for providing the information and also supporting it. I would think in regard with this, a lot of forumnites can be correctly informed as I see various threads on resignation, moving, managerial-related problems etc.
 
sawireless said:
If the Sales Rep or Technician decides to leave the mutual partnership with SA Wireless, this person is not allowed to start their own Wireless company for 2 years or be employed by another Wireless company for 6 months as installation procedures, infrastructure, service providers and operational knowledge of SA Wireless is shared openly with the Sales Reps and Technicians
Click to expand...

No mention of geographical area for the clause to apply. I hazard a guess that it is for the whole of SA and if I am correct in my assumption, your RoT Agreement would unenforceable IMO.

sawireless said:
as installation procedures, infrastructure, service providers and operational knowledge of SA Wireless is shared openly with the Sales Reps and Technicians
Click to expand...

As always though, it would depend on the unique facts of the case, particularly the nature of the protectable interest you've mentioned. Just off the top of my completely-clueless-about-WISPS head though I would imagine most of those things are in the public domain anyway or are well known in such a specialized industry, so the interest is not worthy of protection anyway... ergo: unenforceable RoT.

WAZZAP WISP remember the burden is on you to prove the case and you have to initiate the proceedings since the contract is enforceable as a matter of public policy, until proven otherwise.
 
Sawireless never signed any contract in black and white with any employee or partner.
Sawireless request money upfront from the clients to buy equipment and when clients decide to leave sawireless block the ubiquity unit so the clients cannot use it anywhere else
 
Interesting? How can a Company as Big as Sawireless enter into a working relationship with out co without a written contract, You cannot hold someone responsible if no agreement signed, shocking very shocking
 
in order this T&C to work you need to have a Black and white contract signed with the employee and you have to provide a 6 month income for the technicians or sales reps. Other wise the will end up suing you my dear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X