« Arbitration Law Memo November 2007 | Main | Arbitration Law Memo January 2008 »
Arbitration Law Memo December 2007
by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
Arbitration Law Memo December 2007
by LawMemo - First in Employment Law
Also by free monthly email.
***
Arbitration - Individual Arbitration Agreements ***
***
Arbitration - Collective Bargaining Agreements ***
*** Arbitration - Individual Arbitration Agreements ***
CA - Employer's failure to produce arbitration agreement was fatal to its motion to compel arbitration.
Mitri
v. Arnel Management (California Ct App 12/12/2007)
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G038003.PDF
Mitri sued the employer, asserting claims for (among other things) sexual harassment and retaliation. The employer moved to compel arbitration, but that motion was denied. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. The employer was unable to produce any arbitration agreement, but contended that employee handbook references to arbitration were sufficient to compel arbitration. Although the handbook stated that employment disputes "will be settled by binding arbitration," it also stated that "all employees are required to sign an arbitration agreement" and that employees "will be provided a copy of their signed arbitration agreement." The court found that the handbook itself was not intended to constitute an arbitration agreement. All the handbook did was place employees on notice that they would be called upon to sign a separate arbitration agreement. Although Mitri signed a form acknowledging receipt of the handbook, the language of the receipt did not recite an agreement to be bound by arbitration.
PA - Employer waived right to arbitration.
Stanley-Laman v. Hyldahl
(Pennsylvania Sup 12/14/2007)
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/superior/out/a33005_07.pdf
Hyldahl was sued by his employer for breach of non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements. He counterclaimed against the employer and a co-employer (a closely related entity sharing office space and management). The employers moved to compel arbitration of Hyldahl's counterclaims, but the motion was denied. The court affirmed, concluding that the employers waived their right to arbitration when they sought relief through the judicial process instead of pursuing arbitration on their own claims.
*** Arbitration - Collective Bargaining Agreements ***
PA - Arbitrator violated due process when he based his decision on matters neither party knew were going to be an issue.
Fire
Fighters v. City of Scranton (Pennsylvania Cmnwlth 11/30/2007)
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/865CD07_11-30-07.pdf
The union petitioned the trial court, seeking an order vacating a grievance arbitration award rendered in favor of the employer. The trial court denied the petition. The court reversed. The arbitrator's analysis involved examination of the origin of certain past practices. Neither the union nor the employer were aware that this was going to be a component of the arbitrator's analysis, and thus neither party made any attempt to address that issue. The court concluded that as a result "the standards of fundamental fairness required for due process were not satisfied."
PA - Interest arbitration award's "just cause" requirement violated county code provision.
Westmoreland County v. Detectives
(Pennsylvania Cmnwlth 12/04/2007)
http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/CWealth/out/2258CD06_12-4-07.pdf
The police officers' union appealed the trial court's order striking the "just cause" provision of an interest arbitration award. The court affirmed. The provision established a "just cause" requirement for the imposition of discipline, but the court determined that this aspect of the award violated 16 P.S. Section 1620 (Section 1620 of the County Code). Section 1620 reserves to county management the right to make decisions regarding "the hiring, discharging, and supervising" of county employees. The court noted, "Pennsylvania's Courts have consistently interpreted Section 1620 as rendering unenforceable collective bargaining agreements which seek to impair a county officer's power to supervise, hire, and fire personnel."
PA - Interest arbitrators' award on retiree health insurance benefits did not exceed their authority.
City of Pittsburg v. Fraternal
Order of Police (Pennsylvania 11/27/2007)
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-74A&B-2007mo.pdf
|
|
EEOC | NLRB | Supreme Court | Employment Law Blog | Arbitration Blog | Employment Law 101
