Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable

In short, SCOTUS today released an arbitration report that guarantees that 2015 will continue the series of years of interpretation of the federal arbitration law. In DIRECTV v. Imbourgia, the Supreme Court ruled that the interpretation of a compromise clause in California was anticipated by the FAA. DIRECTV is a 6-3 decision, with Judge Kagan… 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 time given to a staff member to verify the agreement and review the courts varies by requiring the “reciprocity” of the agreement to appeal arbitration. In other words, some courts require the employer to agree to submit to arbitration all bivalve molluscs against the worker, as well as to compel the worker to make claims against the employer.

Comments are closed.