An employment contract limited an employee’s right to file claims against the employer to a period of only 6 months.
The National Labor Court ruled that an agreement to shorten the statute of limitations without any real benefit to the employee is contrary to public policy and therefore void. The law allows the parties to agree between themselves to extend or shorten the statute of limitations, under certain conditions, and in particular by drafting a separate written contract for this purpose. However, any contract whose conclusion, content or purpose is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy is void. Here, the employer signed the employee on a separate contract containing a blanket and comprehensive clause that significantly limited the employee’s ability to exercise rights arising from the employment relationship. No specific negotiations were conducted with the employee regarding this waiver document at the time of signing, the employee had no awareness or understanding of the violation of his rights and he did not derive any real benefit from signing the document. Therefore, in the absence of any legitimate or mutual interest, other than the employer’s desire to reduce the economic risk resulting from labor claims, this is a contract that is contrary to public policy and is liable to be annulled.
