What does &quot;sign it voluntarily as my own free act&quot; mean? At the very end of a company's severance agreement (for laid-off employees), just before the signature box, the agreement reads (emphasis mine): I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THE FOREGOING RELEASE, FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS MEANING AND CONSEQUENCES, AND SIGN IT VOLUNTARILY AS MY OWN FREE ACT. Given that an employee isn't voluntarily laid off (i.e. being faced with this agreement in the first place isn't a voluntary act), and that an employee must sign essentially under the threat of not receiving severance pay and benefits if they don't (i.e. they &quot;voluntarily&quot; sign it in the same way they &quot;voluntarily&quot; don't drive head first into oncoming traffic), this seems like a curious thing to state: It does not seem that the employee is really voluntarily signing it under their own free act. They kind of have to sign it, or they're hosed. My questions are: What does this language protect the company against? What employee rights does this forfeit if the employee signs? That is, what purpose does this language serve? The reason I am wondering is: There are many contracts without this language, are those contracts therefore not protected against claims that signing them was forced? For the implication that &quot;if you don't like it don't sign it&quot;, isn't that true of any contract even without this sentence? If the company didn't put this language in, it seems like it would be similar to any other typical contract that also does not have this language, so if it was a generally required protection I would expect to see it all the time. What could make this agreement different as to require that statement?
The &quot;Severance Agreement&quot; is a contract between the company and you. It spells out what the company will do and probably what they expect you to do going forward. Simple enough. The statement you referenced merely says that you are not being forced to sign the agreement. That's all. You don't, presumably, have the option of remaining employed at this company but you DO NOT have to sign this agreement. But if you don't, it's likely that any benefits being promised in the agreement will not be delivered to you. So specifically in answer to your questions: It protects them against a claim that they somehow forced you to sign the agreement. Likely anything that the agreement says the company will do such as pay you a certain amount of money and the like. Bottom line is that if you don't like the agreement, don't sign it. If you want the benefits they are promising in the agreement, then sign it and move on.
Such clauses are called "copyright assignment", "invention assignment", and/or "works for hire" clauses, partly depending on the clause's intent and wording. They're pretty common in employment contracts for software development and some creative positions. Frankly, the clauses don't actually do much, at least in the US -- copyright law already recognizes the concept of works made for hire (which belong to the employer), and claims too far beyond that are often rejected if they aren't obviously related to company business. With that said, your hypothetical programmer's painting is safe unless it depicts, say, the contents of an email from the CEO. :) Even if the clause technically entitles the employer to claim ownership, the employer has no legitimate interest in doing so. Likewise, that app created outside work is safe as long as it is created using no company resources and is unrelated to the employer's business. If the app is obviously related, that's where things get hairy.
IANAL, and as @GeorgeBailey suggests, you should ask one. That said, some aspects of your question are directly addressable with what we know. Does US law states anything about this? Yes. Federally this falls under the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §2511. Workplace monitoring generally falls under either the "System Administrator Exception" or under Consent. In general, continuing past a banner constitutes consent. Does company policy enforcement with such a warning over ride the right to not be subject to surveillance? In general, yes. You don't need to use the companies network if you don't want to consent - and they don't need to hire you if you don't want to use their network. But it's their network, and their rules apply. There are some nuances, and courts have found that the wording of the notice has made a difference in some cases, but overall, if the systems are properly posted with banners, then the employer may capture communications. See the "Bannering and Consent" section of this article from cybertelecom.org, e.g.: Even if no clicking is required, a user who sees the banner before logging on to the network has received notice of the monitoring. By using the network in light of the notice, the user impliedly consents to monitoring pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c)-(d). Note that stored data is covered by different laws than communications. It's a nuance. Is it ethical to sniff all the data without giving any other warning than the logon banner? "Ethical" is a very different question than "Legal", and largely more subjective. Most employers require signed consent for monitoring as a condition of employment, and use banners thereafter. That is ethical by my definition, in that it meets or exceeds the requirements of the law, and does not mislead or use subterfuge. The tone of your question suggests you find it distasteful, and therefore probably it violates your personal code of ethics.
I limit my answer to U.S. law. The Right To Quit And Its Impact On Unemployment Benefits First, absent narrow exceptions (e.g. soldiers), any employee can quit at any time, from work with a bad employer. Normally quitting forfeits a right to unemployment insurance payments, but if the employee can convince the unemployment eligibility hearing office that the conditions the employer established were so bad that there was a &quot;constructive discharge&quot; the employee will be treated as having been fired for purposes of unemployment insurance. The employee can't get an advisory opinion on constructive discharge, however. The employee must act first and argue that there was a constructive discharge afterwards at risk of not getting any unemployment benefits if the employee loses. Occupational Safety and Health Laws Second, the employer is obligated to follow workplace safety law. Outside the mining industry (which does not include oil and gas work), workplace safety regulations are primarily promulgated by OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) which is a subdivision of the federal department of Labor. Many states have a parallel state agency. (The mining industry is governed by MHSA a parallel and much more powerful body.) Violating workplace safety rules established by OSHA can result in the employer being fined and being required to correct the situation going forward, although the amounts of the fine even taken together with worker's compensation packages, are often far less than the amount of liability that the employer would have in a third-party negligence lawsuit. The government and not the employee receives the fine paid if one is imposed. Also, OSHA is vastly understaffed and routinely ignores worker complaints out of sheer lack of manpower, since it is responsible for all safety issues for 98%+ of all employees in the entire United States. OSHA has protocols related to requirements for employees working in extreme heat that are discussed here. In particular, OSHA states that: Washington, Minnesota, and California have specific laws governing occupational heat exposure. Federal OSHA has a General Duty Clause (Section 5a of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) that requires employers to provide a place of employment that is “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.” The OSHA Technical Manual Chapter on Heat Stress establishes that OSHA uses WBGT to determine if a heat hazard was present. Thus, outside those three states, rather than having detailed requirements in a regulation, OSHA has general suggestions and provides a framework for evaluating heat related safety and occupational illness issues that gets evaluated on a case by case basis if OSHA asserts that an employer has violated these general safety requirements, which will be resolved in a hearing, if necessary, if a citation issued by OSHA on this basis is issued by OSHA and disputed by the employer. Worker's Compensation Third, the employer has liability without regard to fault for all work related injuries, illness and deaths under worker's compensation law. The employer has liability even if the employer didn't violate any OSHA regulations or standards. But, the recovery allowed is much more meager than it would be between strangers suing each other for negligence. It is largely limited to lost wages, medical expenses, and funeral expenses, although if a deceased worker has dependents, their dependent survivors are also entitled to worker's compensation lost income benefits. The existence of worker's compensation coverage, however, bars an employee from bringing a lawsuit other than a worker's compensation claim against the employer, however. Collective Bargaining Rights Of Unionized Workers Fourth, in a unionized workplace, the union could raise a grievance with the employer under the collective bargaining agreement governing the workplace which will universally require the employer to follow safety rules. If there is a dispute, these disputes are typically referred to an arbitrator in union-management arbitration. The arbitrator has considerable freedom to fashion remedies if the arbitrator feels that the safety rules were not followed. Neither side can appeal the arbitrator's ruling. If the employer does not follow an order from an arbitrator, this is converted to a court order at an ordinary court with jurisdiction over the employer and the court will make the arbitrator's order a court order which may be enforced under pain of contempt of court sanctions (including incarceration or punitive fines).
First of all, the question seems to misunderstand what &quot;union elections&quot; are about. They do not involve forming or joining a union. Under 29 USC 157 all employees have the right to form or join any union at any time. No election is needed. 29 USC 159 provides that: Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities The above section is part of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, as amended and updated. It is found in [Chapter 7 of 29 USC] (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/chapter-7) A union is formed as the voluntary act of its members. A union generally has a constitution that controls its operations. This will specify under what conditions the union will be dissolved. An individual may leave a union at any time. Elections, such as those mentioned in the question, are held by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) when employees desire that a union become the designated collective bargaining representative for a bargaining unit (which is a group of employees deemed to have a &quot;community of interest&quot;). There is considerable flexibility in just which employees shall be designated as a bargaining unit. In the event of a dispute, this is resolved by the NLRB. (see 29 USC 159(b)). Elections may also be held when there is a desire by some workers to change representatives. A petition requesting a representation election can be filed by a union, a worker, or an employer. Under 29 USC 159(a) the representatives for a bargaining unit: &quot;shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment&quot;. That is what representation elections are about. A union, or other organization, is supposed to be recognized or designated as the bargaining representative for a bargaining unit (BU) only if a majority of the workers in that BU who make a choice want that representative. In addition to being certified by the NLRB after winning an election, a union can be recognized as the representative voluntarily by the employer on the request of a majority of the employees. Or such a request can trigger a secret ballot election. My question is, how often can unionization votes be held? Representation elections are normally held no more often than once a year in any BU. Specifically, 29 USC 159(c)(3) provides that: No election shall be directed in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which in the preceding twelve-month period, a valid election shall have been held. Cases recently in the news where a second election has been ordered or proposed in a shorter period of time involve cases where it has been held, or alleged, that the previous election was not valid because of unfair labor practices. An election can also be held to decertify the bargaining representative, or to substitute a new representative. In all these cases a majority of the workers voting must agree for any change to be made. The &quot;no more than once per year&quot; rule applies to all these elections. If there are more than two choices on the ballot (for example, if several different unions are proposed, perhaps along with &quot;no union&quot;) and no one choice gets a majority, a runoff is held between the two choices with the largest number of votes. This is specified in 29 USC 159(c)(3) All representation elections are held under the authority of, and are regulated by, the NLRB. So when a union is formed, a company is no longer allowed to hire any worker outside of the union? This is not correct. That is what is known as the &quot;closed shop&quot;, and it is illegal under the NLRA. Arrangements that are legal (when they are part of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)) under the NLRA are: The &quot;union shop&quot;. On being hired, an employee must join the union within a specified time (which must be at least 30 days, but may be longer). This is specifically permitted by 29 USC 158(a)(3). However, many states have by state law prohibited union shop agreements. An &quot;agency shop&quot;. No employee need join any union, but any employee must pay the designated bargaining representative a fee (normally less than the union membership dues) for its efforts in representing the workers of that BU, and that worker specifically. Some states have by state law prohibited or limited agency shop agreements. An &quot;open shop&quot;. No worker need pay any dues or fee to any union or other representative., But if the representative is a union, its policies are set by the union members, and to become and remain a union member, a worker must pay union dues. Aside from any shop agreement included in a CBA, 29 USC 158(a)(3) provides that it is an unfair labor practice (ULP) for an employer: by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization ... It is also a ULP (under 29 USC 158(a)(2)) for an employer to: dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it ... The provisions of the NLRA and some proposals that have been made to change it are summarized and explained in &quot;The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA): Union Representation Procedures and Dispute Resolution&quot; from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). This report goes into more sub-topics than this answer calls for. As far as I can tell, it correctly describes the current law. See https://www.everycrsreport.com/about.html for more info.
Is this legal? Yes Or does it mean that employee will be in breach of his/her contract? Yes You are assuming that if the evidence is allowed to be presented then that automatically means that keeping it for that purpose is not a breach of the contract. This is not necessarily so; it can be both at the same time. That said, it is unlikely that an employer would attempt to sanction an employee for this as the courts would (rightly) see it as an attempt to pervert the course of justice. As in most things in the law it is possible for all parties in a matter to be on the wrong side of it. If you want to come to the tribunal with "clean hands" then the best thing to do is make a record (not a copy) of the relevant documents and return then to the employer. Before going to the tribunal get your solicitor to subpoena the documents that you want - they will have to produce them and you have them without breaking your contract.
Can he/lawyer try to use the payment to me as leverage, for example, offer to give me that payment only if I agree to sign a non-compete or other document? The employer ultimately ought to comply with the written agreements between you two. The employer is not allowed to belatedly impose conditions that alter (to your detriment) the contract(s), let alone when you are no longer his employee. The clause "You will be paid on X and Y when/if they close" does not reflect whatsoever that payment is contingent on your acceptance of a non-compete agreement. Your description does not reflect any legal merits that would justify your employer to further withhold the compensation to which you are entitled pursuant to the deal/sale that got closed. The employer and his lawyer are just being vexatious.
What is the difference between personal contract, business contract and full-time contract? There is no formal definition, but it most likely refers to whether you intend to be hired as independent contractor, as a corp-2-corp, or as employee in the company's payroll. Each option has its tax, administrative, and legal implications. Some of these are: whether your compensation will be from payroll vs. invoicing the company; an employee might be statutorily entitled to benefits that outside contractors and companies are not; servicing them in a capacity of contractor or company might make it easier for you to take side projects; under some of these three alternatives the company might be more flexible when negotiating raises; you might be hired on a project basis (that is, if you are not in their payroll); in case of liabilities or when one of the parties commits a tort or breaches the contract, the "administrative remedies" could be different.