Q&A: A Theoretical, Not Practical, Question on Labor Law
A Theoretical, Not Practical, Question on Labor Law
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I would like to clarify whether, in the Rabbi’s opinion, there could be a situation in which the prohibition against stipulating contrary to labor law in a contract would have halakhic significance. That is, for example: an employment contract in which the worker agrees to work as an independent contractor and thereby waives the social benefits due to him, even though de facto he is employed in a manner that creates an employer-employee relationship; and whenever such a relationship exists, the employment contract with the stipulation that the worker is a contractor and that no employer-employee relationship exists is void. Does Jewish law recognize contracts and agreements that are void despite the parties’ explicit consent?
With thanks and regards,
Answer
The laws of the state are binding in monetary law, for several reasons: first, this is the law of the kingdom. Second, this is the public’s agreement, so there is an implicit stipulation here. Third, once the contract is unenforceable, it is not valid. Incidentally, even in Jewish law there are situations in which an agreed-upon contract is void (such as a worker who retracts halfway through the day, or a stipulation that there will be no overcharging, and so on).
Discussion on Answer
Indeed.
Hello,
Following up on my previous question, did I understand the Rabbi’s words correctly: can the invalidation of an agreement by force of state law actually affect the invalidation, under Torah law, of a proceeding that was conducted contrary to the law—especially when the Arbitration Law does not allow an arbitrator to adjudicate mandatory laws such as labor law?
Wishing you a happy Hanukkah,