The Chindarah applicants argued that a good faith dispute over past overtime wages could not be resolved, as the Edwards Supreme Court found that a worker`s compensation rights, which are not legally proven, could not be overturned as part of a general release. The Court disagreed. The Court recognized that “the legal right to overtime pay under Section 1194 is not too appeased.” But the court also found that, unlike the Labor Code Section 2804, which expressly prohibits waiving rights under Section 2802 of the Labour Code, there is no similar status of accompaniment to the labour code section 1194. There is therefore no explicit legal prohibition that a worker should not be able to release his right to overtime pay spent in a dispute of agreement on those wages. Shortly after the signing of the transaction agreements, the original applicants filed a second amended complaint, claiming that the agreements were contrary to many provisions of the labour code. Eight current and former Stix employees who signed the agreements joined the proposed class action as a complainant (The Chindarah applicants) 1.1 Stix filed a complaint against them, which charged the breach of contract and infringement, violation of the transaction agreement, and requested clearance. Stix then responded to the second amended complaint and pleaded for release as an affirmative defence. The Supreme Court upheld the release because the release of “everyone” does not include the employee`s unenable compensation rights. Section 2802 of the Labour Code expressly states that an employer must compensate the worker for losses caused by the performance of his obligations and that any agreement to waive this protection is non-binding under Section 2804 of the Labour Code. “Therefore, the waiver of `any` and all rights` would not cover the right to compensation, because we treat [liberation] so that we explicitly include the law that prevents the worker from renouncing that right. So how will employers and workers resolve wage disputes that do not have lengthy and costly hearings or lawsuits? Labour law experts may have considered that workers` wage claims can be settled through transaction agreements when an action is in progress or an administrative law is pending.
But what about disputes that arise during or after employment, but before initiating formal proceedings? Employers generally offer a separation salary to outgoing employees in exchange for the signing of a general release contract. As a general rule, the employee waives “all rights” against the employer, which theoretically include rights to unpaid wages. While there is no case law directly stating that AGING applicants may or may not agree on an individual basis, the combination of different cases indicates that this is contrary to AGING`s intent and may therefore be inappropriate. In the cases cited above, it is stated that the paga cases are treated as separate from the regular class actions, as the paga claims are not intended to provide a refund to the applicants, but rather to punish the abusive employer and to prevent future violations of labour law in California. Therefore, Chindarah should be unappealable because comparisons with the complainants compensated for their unpaid wages, essentially restitution.