Given situation: Person KT brought suit against his former employer of Company K and two of its employees named Person BP and JJ, regarding the dispute of commission on sale of securities. Person KT had filled out a form containing the clause of arbitration. He refused to arbitrage, replying on Section 229 of State C Labour code, which provides that “without regard to the existence of any private arbitration agreement,” actions for collecting wages may be maintained. Both KT and BP had filed a petition in a State C labour court to compel arbitration under section 2 of federal Arbitration act. To discuss: Whether the petition of Person BP and Person JJ is granted.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 3, Problem 11CP

Summary Introduction

Given situation:

Person KT brought suit against his former employer of Company K and two of its employees named Person BP and JJ, regarding the dispute of commission on sale of securities.

Person KT had filled out a form containing the clause of arbitration. He refused to arbitrage, replying on Section 229 of State C Labour code, which provides that “without regard to the existence of any private arbitration agreement,” actions for collecting wages may be maintained.

Both KT and BP had filed a petition in a State C labour court to compel arbitration under section 2 of federal Arbitration act.

To discuss: Whether the petition of Person BP and Person JJ is granted.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Kenneth Thomas brought suit against his former employer, Kidder, Peabody & Company, and two of its employees, Barclay Perry and James Johnston, in a dispute over commissions on sales of securities. When he applied to work at Kidder, Peabody & Company, Thomas had filled out a form, which contained an arbitration agreement clause. Thomas had also registered with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Rule 347 of the NYSE provides that any controversy between a registered representative and a member company shall be settled by arbitration. Kidder, Peabody & Company is a member of the NYSE. Thomas refused to arbitrate, relying on Section 229 of the California Labor Code, which provides that actions for the collection of wages may be maintained “without regard to the existence of any private agreement to arbitrate.” Perry and Johnston filed a petition in a California State court to compel arbitration under Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Should the petition of Perry and…

Merrill Lynch employed Post and Maney as account executives. Both men elected to be paid a salary and to participate in the firm’s pension and profit-sharing plans rather than take a straight commission. Thirteen years later, Merrill Lynch terminated the employment of both Post and Maney. Both men began working for a competitor of Merrill Lynch. Merrill Lynch then informed them that all of their rights in the companyfunded pension plan had been forfeited pursuant to a provision of the plan that permitted forfeiture in the event an employee directly or indirectly competed with the firm. Is Merrill Lynch correct in its assertion? Why or why not?

Muller, a shareholder of SCM, brought an action against SCM over his unsuccessful negotiations to purchase some of SCM’s assets overseas. He then formed a shareholder committee to challenge the position of SCM’s management in that suit. To conduct a proxy battle for management control at the next election of directors, the committee sought to obtain the list of shareholders who would be eligible to vote. At the time, however, no member of the committee had owned stock in SCM for the six-month period required to gain access to such information. Then Lopez, a former SCM executive and a shareholder for more than one year, joined the committee and demanded to be allowed to inspect the minutes of SCM shareholder proceedings and to gain access to the current shareholder list. His stated reason for making the demand was to solicit proxies in support of those the committee had nominated for positions as directors. Lopez brought this action after SCM rejected this demand. Will Lopez succeed?