menu

Enforceability Of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

April 9, 2021 | Posted By: | Uncategorized |

In response to rising court costs and reports on astronomical jury judgments, many employers turned to arbitration in the hope of avoiding labour disputes in court. Their reasoning is simple: arbitration is considered less costly and less uncertain than jury trials. However, arbitration agreements must be carefully and scrupulously developed. Moreover, mandatory conciliation may not always be the right answer. Second, the interpretation of Section 7 of the NLRA and its legislative history, as well as the opinion of the Court of Justice in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., were held by the majority that the NRL does not abdicate the FAA. The court said that Section 7 of the LNRA does not contain language that allows the Court to issue an order from Congress to supplant the FAA and prohibit arbitration agreements that contain class remedies. The majority justified this decision by the fact that Section 7 concerns the right of workers to organize unions and to negotiate collective and collective proceedings, not to class or group procedures. The Tribunal rejected the applicants` arguments that the catchall language of Section 7 “other concerted activities within the meaning of … mutual assistance or protection” – includes collective actions and collective actions.

The majority felt that this sentence, which appears at the end of a detailed list of activities related to collective bargaining, self-organization, etc., should be read to “protect things that workers do only for themselves, if they exercise their right to free association in the workplace, and not the highly regulated activities of class disputes and common litigation. , related to the courtroom.” The Court also justified this decision by the fact that its interpretation was underlined by the structure of the NRA, which establishes regulatory rules for each type of concerted activity it lists, but which does not provide comparable guidance for class actions and class actions. The Supreme Court is currently considering a case in which the inclusion of class actions in arbitration agreements is challenged. The group action prohibits workers from participating in collective actions in response to widespread violations of workers` rights in the workplace. The Court will decide whether the class action exemption is an offence under the National Labor Relations Act; their decision could have a significant impact on workers` rights. Despite the increasing attention paid to the issue of mandatory work reconciliation, there is a lack of good data on the prevalence of this phenomenon. A 1992 scientific study on dispute resolution procedures applied by companies in non-union enterprises showed that 2.1% of the companies surveyed used arbitration in their proceedings (Leaf and Chachere 1995, 31). The only major state effort to examine the extent of mandatory arbitration was a 1995 GAO survey, which found that 7.6% of firms had adopted mandatory work reconciliation (GAO 1995).

/