In the absence of informed consent and mutual benefit, an employee’s consent to shorten the statute of limitation period will not be enforced

An employment contract limited an employee's right to file claims against the employer for a period of 6 months.

The National Labor Court held that an agreement to shorten the limitation period without any real benefit to the employee is against public policy and is therefore void. Israeli law allows the parties to agree between themselves on extending or shortening the statute of limitation period, under certain conditions, and in particular by drawing up a separate written contract for that purpose. However, any contract which design, content or purpose is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy is null and void. Here, the employer made the employee sign a separate contract with a broad and general clause that significantly limited the employee's ability to exercise his rights arising from the employment relationship. There was no specific negotiation with the employee regarding this waiver document at the time of signing, the employee had no awareness nor understanding regarding the abuse of his rights and he did not derive any real benefit from signing the document. Therefore, in the absence of any legitimate or mutual interest, apart from the employer's desire to reduce the economic risk as a result of labor claims, it is a contract that is against public policy and should be annulled.