Non-Compete for Nail Technicians - When It Works, How to Implement It and What Is Pointless (2026)

Your nail technician left and took your clients with her. A familiar story? A non-compete clause can prevent this, but only if it is properly drafted. A flawed clause is wasted time and money because a court will void it anyway. This article explains what Poland's Labour Code says about non-compete agreements, what you must include in the contract, and what mistakes most salon owners make.

Two Types of Non-Compete in an Employment Relationship

The Labour Code distinguishes two separate types of non-compete restriction. Each works differently and requires different action on your part.

Non-compete during employment

This restriction requires no separate agreement. It stems directly from the employee's duty of loyalty to the employer (Article 100 § 2 point 4 of the Labour Code). While the technician is employed by you, you can:

• Prohibit her from working for a direct competitor during her working hours with you.
• Require that she does not run her own salon simultaneously, if it damages your interests.
• Protect your trade secrets and client base.

You do not need a separate agreement for this, but you can clarify the scope in your workplace regulations or employment contract. Breaching this restriction during employment is grounds for termination without notice for reasons attributable to the employee.

Non-compete after termination of employment

This is where things get complicated. A post-employment non-compete does NOT arise automatically from any statutory provision. For it to be binding, you must enter into a separate, written non-compete agreement. Without this agreement, the technician can open her own salon the day after leaving, take clients with her, and do nothing illegal.

What a Post-Employment Non-Compete Agreement Must Include

If any of the following elements is missing, a court may declare the agreement void or unenforceable.

Written form

A non-compete agreement must be in writing. A verbal conversation, a text message, an unsigned email: none of these constitute a valid agreement. Failure to use written form means the restriction is void by operation of law (Article 101² § 2 of the Labour Code).

Duration

You must specify how long the restriction lasts after the employment ends. The Labour Code does not set a maximum period explicitly, but courts challenge restrictions that are too long or too broad. The practically sensible range is 6 to 12 months. A longer restriction is possible, but you risk the court shortening or voiding it as an excessive restraint on the freedom to work.

Geographic scope and type of activity

You must describe exactly what you are prohibiting. For example: "providing nail, brow and lash styling services in [city] and the surrounding municipalities" or "providing nail styling services to salon clients within 12 months of the end of employment". The more precise the description, the easier it is to enforce.

Compensation for the technician

This is the element most salon owners do not know about or omit. A post-employment non-compete is valid ONLY if you provide compensation to the employee. The minimum compensation is 25% of her salary for the entire duration of the restriction (Article 101² § 3 of the Labour Code).

Example: the technician earns 4,000 PLN gross per month. The restriction lasts 12 months. Minimum compensation: 25% × 4,000 PLN × 12 = 12,000 PLN, paid monthly (1,000 PLN per month). No compensation, or compensation below the minimum: the restriction is void by law, without exception.

Non-Compete for a B2B Technician

If the technician works under a B2B contract (sole trader), the Labour Code does not apply to her. You can include a non-compete as a contractual clause in the B2B agreement, governed by the Civil Code. The differences are significant:

• You do not have to pay compensation (if you structure the agreement that way). An unpaid clause is legally valid.
• You have more freedom in defining the scope and duration.
• However, courts assess such clauses individually: an excessively broad or disproportionate restriction may be voided or modified by the court on the grounds of public policy.
• It is worth including a liquidated damages clause (kara umowna): this makes enforcement much easier, because you do not need to prove the exact amount of your loss.

Common Mistakes - Restrictions That Are Pointless

Most "non-compete clauses" used by salon owners fail to meet legal requirements. Here are the most frequent mistakes:

• "You cannot open your own salon for 5 years": too long, too broad, no compensation. A court will void this or at least shorten it to a reasonable period.
• Restriction without compensation in an employment relationship: void by law, without exception.
• Prohibition on "taking clients": clients are not your property. You cannot prohibit a client from going to a different salon of her own free will. You can prohibit the technician from actively poaching clients (for example, contacting them to encourage them to switch), but a client's voluntary decision to follow the technician is not a breach of a non-compete clause.
• Restriction contained in workplace regulations without the employee's signature: workplace regulations do not substitute for a separate written post-employment non-compete agreement.
• Restriction with no defined geographic scope: "prohibition on working in the beauty industry worldwide" is unenforceable.

How to Enforce a Non-Compete Breach

The technician has breached the restriction. What do you do? Enforcement goes through the courts, but there are tools that make it easier.

Liquidated damages clause

If you included a liquidated damages clause (kara umowna) in the non-compete agreement, enforcement is much simpler. You do not need to prove the amount of your loss: proving the fact of the breach is enough. The court can reduce the amount if it is grossly excessive.

Damages claim

Without a liquidated damages clause: you must prove that you suffered a loss and quantify it. This is harder. Evidence includes: a list of clients who moved to the technician, client statements, booking history, comparison of revenue before and after the technician's departure.

Interim injunction

You can apply for an interim injunction: the court can temporarily prohibit the technician from carrying on the competing activity while the case is pending. This is an effective tool but requires you to make the claim sufficiently credible to the court.

FAQ

Can I stop a former employee from taking my clients?

Only if you have a valid written non-compete agreement with compensation. Without the agreement, you have no legal basis for a claim. A client has the right to choose any salon she wishes. You can pursue a claim if the technician actively poached clients while still employed or immediately after leaving, violating other rules (for example, on unfair competition), but the client's own free choice cannot be restricted.

Does an unpaid non-compete clause make sense for a B2B contract?

For B2B: yes. The Civil Code does not require compensation for a non-compete clause. An unpaid clause is legally effective. However, courts may void it if it is excessively restrictive with no compensation whatsoever. It is safer to include at least a token sum or other benefits (for example, a higher rate during the collaboration as a form of "built-in" compensation).

How long can a non-compete restriction last?

The Labour Code sets no explicit maximum, but court practice points to 6 to 24 months as a reasonable range for beauty salons. A 5-year restriction is very risky: a court may shorten or void it. The appropriate length also depends on the role: for a nail or lash technician, 12 months is the standard.

What if the technician breaches the restriction and I have no evidence?

Gathering evidence is your responsibility. Document: screenshots of social media (new workplace, business profile), client statements (you can ask for a written declaration), booking history, revenue comparison before and after departure. If you included a liquidated damages clause, proving the fact of the breach is sufficient without itemising your exact loss.