Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Alert: Employers Should Review Arbitration Agreements

By Steven W. Suflas and Isaac P. Hernandez
September 29, 2010

Employers should revisit and review the language of any arbitration agreements in light of a Guideline Memorandum (GC Memo) issued by Ronald Meisburg four days before stepping down from his post as General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The GC Memo

The GC Memo, issued June 16, 2010, regards the validity under the National Labor Relations Act of mandatory arbitration agreements that restrict the right of employees to pursue class action lawsuits against their employers. It provides a legal framework for determining whether such agreements unlawfully restrict the right of employees to engage in activities protected under Section 7 of the NLRA.

The Memo attempts to strike a balance between well-established yet competing policy interests. A quintessential element of federal labor law is the right of employees to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection. At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the right of employers to demand that employees sign mandatory arbitration agreements, obligating them to pursue employment-related claims in an arbitral forum. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991). See also 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett, __ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1456 (2009).

Suggested Modifications

Because the right to engage in protected activity includes the right to file collective and class action lawsuits on employment-related matters, the GC Memo concludes that an arbitration agreement that could be read by a “reasonable employee” to waive an individual's right to pursue or participate in employment-related class action lawsuits would constitute an unlawful labor practice. However, arbitration agreements that restrict only the right of employees to pursue individual claims would still be lawful.

The GC Memo suggests modifying existing agreements to provide the following assurances:

  • The employer's arbitration agreement does not constitute a waiver of collective rights under Section 7, including the right to pursue concertedly any covered claim before a state or federal court on a class, collective, or joint action basis.
  • The employer recognizes the employees' right to challenge concertedly the validity of the forum waiver agreement upon such grounds as may exist at law or in equity.
  • No employee will be disciplined, discharged, or otherwise retaliated against for exercising their rights under Section 7.

The Memo further suggests that so long as an arbitration agreement does not purport to restrict the right of employees to engage in protected concerted activity through class actions, i.e., challenging the validity of such agreements, employers can “lawfully seek to have a class action complaint dismissed on the ground that each purported class member is bound by his or her signing of a lawful Gilmer agreement/waiver.”

Conclusion

Although it is unclear whether and to what extent the newly reconstituted NLRB or a new General Counsel will adopt this legal analysis, employers would be prudent to take this as an opportunity to revisit and review the language of any arbitration agreements.


Steven W. Suflas is managing partner of the Ballard Spahr New Jersey office and a partner in the Litigation Department. He is also a member of the Labor and Employment Group and Health Care Group. He can be reached at 856-761-3466 or [email protected]. Isaac P. Hernandez is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Labor and Employment Group.

Employers should revisit and review the language of any arbitration agreements in light of a Guideline Memorandum (GC Memo) issued by Ronald Meisburg four days before stepping down from his post as General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The GC Memo

The GC Memo, issued June 16, 2010, regards the validity under the National Labor Relations Act of mandatory arbitration agreements that restrict the right of employees to pursue class action lawsuits against their employers. It provides a legal framework for determining whether such agreements unlawfully restrict the right of employees to engage in activities protected under Section 7 of the NLRA.

The Memo attempts to strike a balance between well-established yet competing policy interests. A quintessential element of federal labor law is the right of employees to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection. At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the right of employers to demand that employees sign mandatory arbitration agreements, obligating them to pursue employment-related claims in an arbitral forum. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. , 500 U.S. 20 (1991). See also 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett , __ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1456 (2009).

Suggested Modifications

Because the right to engage in protected activity includes the right to file collective and class action lawsuits on employment-related matters, the GC Memo concludes that an arbitration agreement that could be read by a “reasonable employee” to waive an individual's right to pursue or participate in employment-related class action lawsuits would constitute an unlawful labor practice. However, arbitration agreements that restrict only the right of employees to pursue individual claims would still be lawful.

The GC Memo suggests modifying existing agreements to provide the following assurances:

  • The employer's arbitration agreement does not constitute a waiver of collective rights under Section 7, including the right to pursue concertedly any covered claim before a state or federal court on a class, collective, or joint action basis.
  • The employer recognizes the employees' right to challenge concertedly the validity of the forum waiver agreement upon such grounds as may exist at law or in equity.
  • No employee will be disciplined, discharged, or otherwise retaliated against for exercising their rights under Section 7.

The Memo further suggests that so long as an arbitration agreement does not purport to restrict the right of employees to engage in protected concerted activity through class actions, i.e., challenging the validity of such agreements, employers can “lawfully seek to have a class action complaint dismissed on the ground that each purported class member is bound by his or her signing of a lawful Gilmer agreement/waiver.”

Conclusion

Although it is unclear whether and to what extent the newly reconstituted NLRB or a new General Counsel will adopt this legal analysis, employers would be prudent to take this as an opportunity to revisit and review the language of any arbitration agreements.


Steven W. Suflas is managing partner of the Ballard Spahr New Jersey office and a partner in the Litigation Department. He is also a member of the Labor and Employment Group and Health Care Group. He can be reached at 856-761-3466 or [email protected]. Isaac P. Hernandez is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Labor and Employment Group.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

The Benefits of Blockchain for e-Discovery and Data Preservation Image

As businesses across various industries increasingly adopt blockchain, it will become a critical source of discoverable electronically stored information. The potential benefits of blockchain for e-discovery and data preservation are substantial, making it an area of growing interest and importance.