Issue: The issue at hand is whether or not a court could disregard the decision made by an arbitrator regarding “whether or not the [workplace] rule was reasonable and whether or not the employee violated it” (77). In this case, the arbitrator decided in favor of an employee who did violate an agreement between his employer and the union that negotiated the conditions of employment on his behalf. The arbitrator agreed that the employee did break a rule, but wasn't sure that the violation should have resulted in termination. Did the arbitrator step outside of his/her bounds? Rule: Under the Defects in the Arbitration Process section: “4. The arbitrator exceeded his or her powers or failed to use them to make a mutual, final, and definite …show more content…
The agreement stated that the arbitrator is limited to deciding if the employee violated a rule, and if so, was the rule that was broken a reasonable one. The solution that the arbitrator presented addressed the violation and the reasonableness of the rule, but then acted contrarily by stating that s/he “was not totally convinced” that Horton handled the situation correctly, leading to an order that the employee should be reinstated. If the arbitrator had followed the limits of the agreement, Mr. de la Garza should have had his employment terminated (he did break a reasonable rule), and because of the behavior of the arbitrator, a court should be able to set aside the order if Horton decided to take the matter further. I am strongly in favor of ADR in the majority of cases. It appears to be a less aggressive approach to solving conflict, and I think that that's something that every society could benefit from. Also, as court costs rise, budgets get cut, and the business environment becomes more competitive, using ADR techniques seem like a good way to maintain efficiency. After reading this chapter, I expect that I will have to sign a contract including an ADR clause at some point; as long as the clause isn't completely in favor of the other party I wouldn't have an issue with it. In fact, I would bet that if I look through all of the contracts that I have entered in to over the last few years, I can probably find multiple ADR
Potter eligible for his complaint and is protected by the code as a non-unionized employee. The breach of the employment contract bounding Mr. Potter and the Commission clearly falls into the realm of constructive dismissal. The absence of proper authority and the change of terms of employment prior a settlement between the two parties, is why the case turned into Mr. Potter’s
Faced with this evidence, the trial court denied Westlake’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. The court noted that while Westlake’s Spanish version of the contract contained an arbitration provision; Ramos’
The law clearly states the Supreme Court has held that binding arbitration is equally applicable to both parties. The law also states that “An employee’s agreement to arbitrate is clear when the employee signs an application form or agreement requiring arbitration, receives something of value from the employer, and is given a copy of the relevant arbitration rules.” CITATION Bag10 \p 92 \l 1033 (Bagley & Savage, 2010, p. 92)There is of course the possibility of recourse for the terminated employee, Mr. Compton, in a lawsuit filed by the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission0. The law states that “The EEOC may file a claim in court on its own behalf against an employer, even if the employee involved had entered into an enforceable
The court of appeals of the District modified the judgment of the supreme court by striking out the order for 'labor,' and, as so modified, affirmed it.The case was brought to this court on writ of error. A motion to dismiss and a petition for certiorari were
In the case of Nino v. The Jewelry Exchange, there were allegations brought forth by Rajae Nino who felt he was discriminated against by his former employer, on the account of his gender and national origin. When he was employed with said employer, he was given a copy of the company’s employment contract by the human resources manager and instructed him to read it and sign it without affording him any opportunity to negotiate over its terms. With most discrimination cases, “the EEOC encourages the parties to discrimination charges to use mediation” (Walsh, p. 20), with this case the employer invoked an arbitration provision in Nino’s employment contract wherein the Court of Appeals decided the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. On the flip side, if the unconscionable terms were removed from the contract, the remainder of the employment contract could be enforced.
The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff and declared that the City was responsible for the employer’s action based on Title VII which was subject to an affirmative defense. The Supreme Court found that the work environment was hostile and it was attributable to Silverman and Terry’s behavior. The Supreme Court also found that the employer is vicariously liable for some tortious conduct on behalf of the supervisors, Bill Terry and David Silverman.
Separate Opinions: Judgment was affirmed by Judges Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ. , as they believed Allen was discharged for taking unauthorized breaks from her scheduled employment. Since Allen failed to present evidence of a discriminatory motive from Isotoner, or that reason for releasing her from employment was a ground for discrimination, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ. felt only the issues presented by the facts of Isotoner discharging Allen due to ‘unauthorized breaks’ should be decided on, while issues of the facts not directly placed on issue should only be responded to with advisory opinion.
The employer breached the implied oral contract because in less than two months Dillon was called into her supervisor’s office and was terminated from that position in which the employer stated that it was not working out. The written contact, according to the Champion Jogbra’s policy, was that actions will be carried out “in a fair and consistent manner.” Concerning the disclaimer at the start of the manual, it was inconsistent with the terms of the Corrective Action policy. The Champion’s employees, including Dillon, could interpret an implied contract because of mixed messages they received from the written manual, the disciplinary action policy, the at-will relationship explained, and the oral statements given.
3. If you were a member of the NLRB, how would you rule in this case and why?
Although the arbitrator’s final awards are legally binding, an unhappy party of arbitration may still go to court under certain circumstances. As mentioned by Fallon & McConnell, “unless one party protests that there was a gross injustice, collusion, or fraud, arbitration that is specified by a contract can be converted into a legal judgment. This requires a petition to the appropriate court” (n.d., p. 388). As expected, this can become costly for the person who is seeking to appeal.
3. How valid is the company’s argument that the labor agreement with maintenance employees is “beyond the scope of this grievance”?
The primary proposition in this regard is that the Arbitrator’s award is final in fact and law . Court’s interference is only in exceptional cases . The Courts have always been careful in
A potential advantage of ADR is that because parties voluntarily involve themselves in the process, and in most cases agree to the outcome there is rarely a difficulty with enforcement. Enforcement is a much greater potential problem of litigation where a party who has lost in court may be unwilling to meet judgement. At the same time, individuals have pointed to the advantages of the type of settlement which could be achieved by ADR over the costly and divisive nature of litigation.
DISPOSITION: [**1] Defendant 's motion to compel Brennan to arbitrate denied. Brennan 's cross-motion to strike the defense of arbitration and stay arbitration granted.
ADR is useful in resolving virtually all genres of disputes by providing speedier, enforceable decisions through Arbitration, Mediation, Early Neutral Evaluation and other hybrid mechanisms. The presence of cost-effective and predictable ADR mechanisms capable of resolving complex disputes help to bolster the confidence of litigants within the country and therefore stimulates trade and investment both internationally and locally.