What are some jurisdictions where a &quot;no-strike clause&quot; is illegal? This paper (PDF file) gives the following example of a typical no-strike clause in a collective bargaining agreement in the United States (the paper is from 1984, so I'm not sure to what extent it reflects the current reality in the US): The union agrees that it will not collectively, concertedly or individually engage in or participate, directly or indirectly, in any strike, slowdown, stoppage or any other interference with or interruption of the work or operations of the employer during the term of this agreement; and the employer agrees that during the term of this agreement it will not lock out any of the employees in the bargaining unit covered by this agreement. What are some jurisdictions where this kind of clause would be legal/illegal? If the scope of the question is too large, I'm interested in particular in European Union countries. The question is simply for my personal culture relative to workers' rights. Thanks,
In germany, this is called Friedenspflicht. Both employers and employees (and their unions) are required to refrain from strikes and lockouts in disputes on issues which are covered by a currently valid collective bargaining agreement. The agreement may also stipulate that there will be no labor actions on issues which are not covered, as long as the agreement is in force, but that is not necessary. Example: There is a collective bargaining agreement on wages, which is still running. Strikes for higher wages are prohibited. Strikes to get better staffing for the night shift would be allowed, if the agreement doesn't say how many employees should be on duty even during slack hours.
A limitation has to be expressed in lease and must not violate laws related to housing discrimination that apply to the place where the leased property is located. There are also other terms of a lease that are statutorily prohibited or prohibited at common law (e.g. imposition of a penalty interest rate in excess of the rate allowed by usury laws). But, the general rule is that anything not prohibited by law is allowed. A secondary analysis is that one of the common law prohibitions in contracts is a &quot;penalty&quot; which means a fixed monetary sanction not easily calculable based upon the measurable economic harm to a party to the contract after the fact. In those cases, the clause, called a &quot;liquidated damages&quot; clause must be a reasonable attempt within reason ex ante to quantify the harm caused by a breach of the contract triggering the liquidated damages clause. If the termination of a lease for a violation of a lease term involving a tangential personal life activity unrelated directly to the premises, and has the effect of making a tenant subject to liability for the balance the lease payments, it might be disqualified as a penalty which is void as contrary to public policy. On the other hand, if it simply operated to terminate the lease as the next convenient juncture (perhaps the next of the next month more than 30 days from the violation) with no financial penalty involved, it would probably be valid.
The entire purpose of the Entire Agreement clause is to say that this contract is the agreement, and anything previously negotiated is not part of the agreement. I don't know why they would fail to include that in the contract.
Probably not. This condition is what's known as a penalty clause, which is not universally allowed. This article discusses penalty clauses in EU law. In the English-Belgian variety, the clause is simply not enforceable. In the Dutch-French and German-Swiss models, such a clause might be enforceable, but the judge can adjust disproportionately high amounts – 250 times the normal price strikes me as disproportionately high. It isn't clear what amount the courts would deem to be reasonable and fair: but the infringer would have to request a reduction in the amount.
Mediation is non-binding Mediation and conciliation are non-binding methods of dispute resolution. If properly conducted, a mediator does not make any suggestions as to how the parties might resolve a dispute; they simply maintain a space where such a resolution might occur. If the parties reach an agreement, that agreement might be a legally binding contract. See What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid? If it is, then it could be enforced by a court. If it isn't then compliance is voluntary. What you describe is not mediation However, the agreement facilitated by Bob &amp; Fred's mutual friend either is or is not a contract and the same circumstances follow.
It is not illegal to treat the employees differently. As long as nobody is being paid for less than the time worked, this is legal. Treating employees differently because of protected characteristics is unlawful discrimination. However, the duration you have worked there is not a protected characteristic. It is perfectly legal for the employer not to mandate new employees clock in and out. It would even be legal (if not a great idea) to hire new employees for twice as much.
Jurisdiction has not been provided, so I've written a general answer: Not necessarily; often, such provisions clauses will have their own expiration dates, for example "for five years after signing, X", with X still being valid after cancellation up to 5 years(so if you cancel after 3 years, X is still valid for 2 more years), or "for two years after cancellations, Y"(especially common with non-compete clauses) where the time-limit of Y starts when the contract is cancelled. Other clauses are meant to indeed be enforced forever, such as some non-disclosure, non-disparagement, or indemnity clauses. For example, an indemnity clause in a contract that prevents a party from suing the counter-party for work done under the contract would be pointless if it could be bypassed by a party terminating the agreement. There are lots of legal limits, based on the terms of the provision, and its nature, all governed by the contract law of the jurisdiction under which the contract was drafted under and/or is governed by (this is generally obvious, except for some cross-border contracts, which generally will have a declaration as to whose laws apply). It is not inherently abusive, but can certainly be abused. What is considered abusive often varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (not only on this issue, but on legal issues in general). It depends on the jurisdiction, and generally on the terms of the provision itself. If the court asked to enforce the terms of the agreement feels that the provision is illegal or abusive, they won't be enforced (and possibly the entire document declared null and void, depending on the central-ness of the illegal or abusive provision; some provisions specifically state that invaliding the provision doesn't invalidate the whole contract to try to prevent this). If they don't feel the provision is illegal or abusive, they will generally enforce it.
Provincial jurisdiction may need to be specified. But in general, assuming you are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, you can be terminated for any reason or even no reason, as long as the contract is followed, the actual or apparent reason is not discriminatory or otherwise illegal and the termination procedure meets the provincial employment standards. The labour law usually provide requirements for notice periods or severance pay (or both), unless there exists a just cause (e.g. extreme disregard of duty, theft, repeated insubordination, etc.; lack of funds on the part of the employer is not a just cause). shouldn't the employer be fully responsible for the salary coverage of his employee in the course of his contract? Yes, but the contract is saying it can be terminated under certain conditions, after which time you are no longer &quot;in the course&quot; of your contract. Termination due to lack of funds is usually not considered discriminatory or otherwise illegal. You remain entitled to wages for any period you have worked. Additionally, the employer needs to respect the required notice period or severance pay under the provincial employment standards related to termination with or without cause, regardless of the funding situation.