Competition Authority initiated an investigation about competitors A, B, C and D because of no-poach agreements between their HR teams. They agreed a gentlemens agreement about not transfering their employees from each other. Please evaluate the following defences of the companies as a competition authority expert as True or False and if false explain WHY.

1. Cooperations in labour markets are not under the scope of competition law. Therefore the Turkish Competition Act is hier not applicable. T/F
2. A and B belong to the same parent company therefore they cannot be considered as independent firms. They shall be regarded as one single firm.  
3. A and B have a vertical relationship. B serves as consultancy firm of A in some management projects and they agreed that A will not transfer B’s employees. This no-poach provision in consultancy agreement may be ancillary to legitimate main agreement. Purpose of preventing free riding of competitors with regard to know how, training and trade secrets. Therefore it is legal. 
4. This no poach agreement is a kind of buyer-side cartel, not a sale-side cartel. Therefore it is not very harmful for the labour markets. The amount of fine shall be less than a sale-side cartel.  
5. Our agreement was not binding and we did not implemented it.  
6. These evidences are found in the business emails of HR teams in the company but from personal laptops. This evidence gathering is illegal. The competition authority has no power of investigating the personal laptops.  
7. If the companies ask for a leniency, the first one who applied will only get an immunity from fines. For all others there is no advantage. 
8. The no poach agreements have the same effect as the non compete clauses in the employment contracts (between the employer and the employee). If the non compete clauses are legal, the no poach agreements shall also be legal.  
9. The investigation on cartels in labour markets is an ex-ante intervention tool for the competition authority.  
10. That a minimum profit margin on the salaries was discussed and fixed in the meeting of for Human Resources Management Association. As this association is a legal NGO (non governmental organization), the decisions are not violating the competition law rules.  

Question 2

Competition Authority initiated an investigation about competitors A, B, C and D because of no-poach agreements between their HR teams. They agreed on a gentlemens agreements about not transfering the employees from each other. Please write down very shortly the answer.

1. At the end of the investigation, if the behaviour are considered as illegal, legal consequences for the firm may be (in Turkey and in EU)
2. At the end of the investigation, if the behaviour are considered as illegal, legal consequences for the firm may be (in USA and UK),

Question 3 The producer (upstream firm: Samsung) of a product, brings a clause to the sales agreement between him and the retailer (Teknosa): ‘Teknosa shall not sell these spesific models of TV for more than X/Y/Z TL. Is this practice legal or illegal? Why?

The producer (upstream firm: Samsung) of a product, brings a clause to the sales agreement between him and the retailer (Teknosa): ‘Teknosa shall not sell these spesific models of TV for less than X/Y/Z TL. Is this practice legal or illegal? Why?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Statement 1 Cooperations in labour markets are not under the scope of competition law Therefore the Turkish Competition Act is not applicable False In many jurisdictions including Turkey competition l... View the full answer