Case Title: Greenlee v. Tuscaloosa Office Products

Citation: 474 So. 2d 669

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1985-07-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
474 So. 2d 669 (1985)
Tommie H. GREENLEE, Jr.
v.
TUSCALOOSA OFFICE PRODUCTS AND SUPPLY, INC.
84-696.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 3, 1985.
*670 William P. Gray, Jr. and Thomas A. Nettles IV of Gray, Espy & Nettles, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Darryl C. Hardin of Hardin & Wise, Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
SHORES, Justice.
Tommie Greenlee, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the trial court granting an injunction in favor of Tuscaloosa Office Products and Supply, Inc., in this action to enforce a non-competition covenant. We reverse and remand.
Tuscaloosa Office Products and Supply, Inc. (TOPS), is engaged in the sale of office supplies and equipment in the City of Tuscaloosa, which includes the sale and service of Canon copiers. On November 1, 1983, TOPS hired Greenlee as a technician to service and repair copiers and, shortly thereafter, entered into an employment contract with him which includes the following provisions:
TOPS terminated Greenlee's employment on January 26, 1984, and the following month he was hired as a service technician by Weatherford Office Supply, Inc., a competitor of TOPS, also located in Tuscaloosa. TOPS subsequently brought suit to enforce the covenant. The trial court granted an injunction prohibiting Greenlee, for a period of two years, from
Greenlee's motion for a new trial was denied, and he appeals.
Section 8-1-1, Ala. Code 1975, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
In DeVoe v. Cheatham, 413 So. 2d 1141, 1142-43 (Ala.1982), the Court, construing § 8-1-1, stated:
In the present case, the restriction is not enforceable because the former employer, TOPS, has no protectable interest in restraining Greenlee's employment. The undisputed material facts show that Greenlee was hired by TOPS to service and repair copiers. He had no management or sales duties. He did not solicit new customers for TOPS, nor did he develop a special relationship with any of its existing customers. In the course of his brief three-month employment there, Greenlee had routine access to TOP's service files containing certain information, including the names of those customers who purchased *672 copiers under continuing maintenance agreements and the respective costs of those agreements. He also had access to the price and service life information concerning Canon parts. Subsequent to his termination at TOPS, Greenlee was hired by Weatherford and worked there as a service technician for approximately eight months until enjoined by the trial court. While there, he was in no way concerned with sales nor with the solicitation of new accounts. Greenlee never discussed with the officials at Weatherford, or anyone else, any of the information to which he had access while at TOPS, and there have been no reported instances of solicitation or interference with TOPS's customers.
Under these facts, TOPS does not have a legitimate interest in restraining Greenlee's employment. As the Court noted in DeVoe v. Cheatham, supra, "a simple labor skill, without more, is simply not enough to give an employer a substantial protectable right unique in his business." Greenlee only repairs copiers; he does not sell them. He did not develop a special relationship with any of TOPS's customers, and his brief access to its service files and parts information was merely incidental to the performance of his job. Furthermore, TOPS has shown no injury as a result of his employment with Weatherford. Enforcement of this restriction would, therefore, impose an undue hardship on Greenlee and prevent him from supporting himself and his family, with no concomitant benefit to TOPS. White Dairy Co. v. Davidson, 283 Ala. 63, 214 So. 2d 416 (1968).
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, EMBRY, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
MADDOX, J., dissents.
MADDOX, Justice (dissenting).
The majority holds that TOPS did not have a legitimate interest in restraining Greenlee's employment with Weatherford Office Supply, Inc., a competitor of TOPS, thereby reversing the holding by the trial court that the noncompetition agreement could be enforced.
There is evidence in the record, which could have been believed by the trial court, that the sale of copying machines is a very competitive business, and that Greenlee's present employer, Weatherford Office Supply, was constantly trying to gather as much information about its competitors as possible. As the majority correctly points out, Greenlee had "access to TOPS's service files containing certain information, including the names of those customers who purchased copiers under continuing maintenance agreements and the respective costs of those agreements."
In DeVoe v. Cheatham, 413 So. 2d 1141 (Ala.1982), which is relied upon by the majority, this Court, although refusing to uphold the noncompetition agreement in that case, nevertheless opined as follows:
413 So. 2d  at 1143.
There is a significantly distinguishable characteristic, in my opinion, between DeVoe, where the employee was an installer of vinyl roofs on automobiles, and this case, where the employee is a trained technician who has the skill to repair copying machines, and who had "access to TOPS's service files containing certain information, including the names of those customers who purchased copiers under continuing maintenance agreements and the respective costs of those agreements."
In the leading case of Hill v. Rice, 259 Ala. 587, 67 So. 2d 789 (1953), this Court quoted from 36 Am.Jur., Monopolies, Combinations and Restraints of Trade, § 79, which provided, in part, as follows:
Although I recognize the harshness of a rule that would prevent a person with a "simple labor skill" from working for a competitor, I believe that the trial judge in this case had sufficient evidence before him to conclude that Greenlee possessed more than a "simple labor skill." In fact, I believe that there was sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that Greenlee was a technician who possessed a "special skill"; therefore, I believe TOPS had a protectable interest, which the trial court was authorized to properly recognize. Consequently, I must respectfully dissent.
[1]  The injunction was ordered effective from January 26, 1984, the date Greenlee's employment was terminated, until midnight of January 25, 1986.