Harsh Agreement

During his hiring, Microsoft had granted Battiston stock options as part of its annual compensation. For each award, Microsoft sent an email to Battiston asking it to read the terms of the corresponding stock bonus agreement and then conclude an online acceptance process that would serve as a record that the terms of the stock bonus were read, understood and accepted. The districts of Erdehan, Kars and Batum were also immediately liberated by Russian troops. Russia will not interfere in the reorganization of the national and international relations of these districts, but will leave it to the people of these districts to carry out this reorganization in agreement with the neighbouring countries, in particular with the Ottoman Empire. As with equity payments, the duration of the stock premium agreement provided that all unsealed stock options would expire at the end of battiston hiring. Referring to this mandate, Microsoft considered that Battiston would no longer be entitled to borrow stock options after the end of its mandate. This is a remarkable choice for employers, as it points out that well-developed contractual provisions purporting to limit a worker`s rights (in this case the granting of stock option bonuses) may not be sufficient to withstand judicial review if these contractual provisions are considered harsh and oppressive. The decision in Battiston proposes that employers take additional steps to highlight this type of provision and draw workers` attention to this issue. While another dismissed employee received a bonus after resigning, this differentiation in salary did not invalidate Kielb`s consent.

The Tribunal found that the contract of the other employee was less restrictive and more vague and that she was not in a position to seek legal advice, as Es Kielb had been. More importantly, nothing prevents an employer from being more generous to one worker than another, unless it happens with bad intent or on a protected ground of discrimination, as defined in the Human Rights Code. Despite this reckless application of the limitation clause, the agreement and the clause itself were found to be enforceable. Kielb had had the opportunity to receive independent advice prior to the conclusion of the contract, had already renegotiated many other contractual terms and, by his own admission, he was aware of the negative effects of the clause.