Employment Agreement Choice Of Law

In Verdugo, the employment contract characterized Harris County, Texas, as an exclusive forum for all litigation arising from Verdugo`s employment, and also had a provision that characterized Texas as the choice of applicable law. [Id. under 617-618.] The applicant based all its rights on the provisions of the labour code and demanded unpaid wages, legal penalties, interest and legal fees on the basis of the employer`s non-payment of overtime pay and the absence of a declaration of wages, food breaks, wages due in the event of dismissal, commissions and leave pay. The California legislature has stated that these rights cannot be violated or nullified by a private agreement, whether written, oral or tacit. Indeed, the California courts have repeatedly recognized that these provisions are not applicable and that any contract that purports to waive these rights is illegal and unenforceable. [id. to 621.] The agreement also included a legal choice clause stipulating that Massachusetts law regulated the agreement, and a court provision that stipulated that any action would be filed in Massachusetts. Thus, the Tribunal found that the law`s choice and jurisdictional provisions are not applicable. Multinational companies often insert legal choice clauses in cross-border employment contracts (usually with the requirement of the right of origin). But most of the time, these clauses are reluctant and require the employer to comply with the additional rules of an additional legal regime. While the choice of the right of a host country or staff in the development of a GEC or a cross-border compensation or equity agreement may be essential for highly compensated expatriates, this exception is limited to problematic labour law issues that do not apply to „mandatory rules“. Even a choice of rights clause, limited to the bonus plan, the share award agreement or the compensation agreement of a high-level executive, will not cede the „mandatory rules“ of the host country.

If multinationals are wrong, they lose in court, see z.B. Duarte v. Black and Decker, [2007] EWHC 2720 (QB) (UK) (1/07); Samengo-Turner v. Marsh and McLennan, [2007] EWCA Civ. 723 (UK) (7/07); See Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics, 667 F.3d 1318 (US 9. Cir. Duarte and Samengo-Turner, two landmark decisions in the United Kingdom, concerned whether a U.S. legal choice clause (one case involved a New York law clause and the other a Maryland law clause) in executive compensation agreements required a British court to defer U.S. law by interpreting a restrictive contract applied in the United Kingdom.

The facts in all cases involved some twists and turns, but at the end of the day, the two British courts decided predictably that the United Kingdom, not the US federal state, controlled public order and the „mandatory rules“ of restrictive agreements that will be applied on British soil – even if the employer puts the restrictive Confederation in complex compensation or a bonus of action. For modern employment contracts to meet the many requirements of labour law, contract law and private international law, all conditions must be formulated with care and strategy to be effective.

Dieser Beitrag wurde unter Allgemein veröffentlicht. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink.