Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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 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.
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 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
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
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 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.
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?
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.