« Arbitration Law Memo May 2008 | Main | Arbitration Law Memo July 2008 »
Arbitration Law Memo June 2008
by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
| Arbitration Law Memo - June 2008 LawMemo First in Employment Law Arbitrator biographies and awards: National Arbitration Center |
|
***
Arbitration - Individual Arbitration Agreements *** ***
Arbitration - Collective Bargaining Agreements ***
*** Arbitration - Individual Arbitration Agreements ***FL - Arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.Santos v. General Dynamics
(Florida Ct App 06/25/2008) Santos sued the employer, asserting claims for national origin discrimination and retaliation under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). The trial court granted the employer's motion to compel arbitration. The court affirmed, concluding that the employer's arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable. Although Santos did not sign the arbitration agreement, it was mailed to him and he continued to work for the employer. *** Arbitration - Collective Bargaining Agreements ***WI - By ignoring statutory law, arbitrator exceeded her authority (4-3).Racine
v. International Assn of Machinists (Wisconsin 06/26/2008) The arbitrator found the employer violated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by entering into service agreements with retired employees. The trial court vacated the arbitration award which the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held the trial court properly vacated the arbitration award. The arbitrator stated in the award that she made no attempt to either interpret or apply statutory law. The court found that the retired employees were employed by the judicial branch pursuant Wis Stat section 767.405, which implicated separation of powers principles. The court concluded that the arbitrator exceeded her authority by not considering Wis Stat section 767.405 and the relevant case law. The DISSENT argued that by failing to address the process by which the county eliminated the positions, the majority ignored the standard of review and the determinations of the arbitrator. 9th - Receipt of "no match" letter from Social Security Administration didn't constitute knowledge that employees were undocumented.Aramark
v. Service Employees (9th Cir 07/16/2008) The employer received a "no match" letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA), indicating that the employer had reported information on some of its employees that did not match the SSA's records. The employer gave the affected employees three days to correct the mismatches. When the employees failed to comply, they were discharged. At grievance arbitration, an arbitrator concluded that the employees were discharged without just cause under the parties' collective bargaining agreement. He ordered them reinstated with backpay. The trial court vacated the arbitration award on the basis that it violated public policy. The 9th Circuit reversed the trial court and confirmed the arbitration award. The employer argued that the arbitration award violated the public policy expressed in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). Under IRCA, employers are subject to civil and criminal liability if they knowingly employ undocumented workers. Under IRCA, the "knowing" element can be satisfied by "constructive knowledge." The court observed that IRCA provided a sufficient public policy basis for vacating an arbitration award, but concluded that receipt of the "no match" letters did not constitute knowledge (or constructive knowledge) that the employees were undocumented. The court noted that "[a social security number] discrepancy does not automatically mean than an employee is undocumented....In fact, the SSA tells employers that the information it provides them 'does not make any statement about ... immigration status' and 'is not a basis, in and of itself, to take any adverse action against the employee.'" The court thus concluded that the arbitrator did not err in determining that the employees were discharged without just cause. NY - Arbitrator's award was irrational.In
the Matter of Local 342 v. Town (New York App Div 06/17/2008) The arbitrator found that the employer had just cause to suspend the employee. The trial court vacated the award and directed reinstatement with back pay and lost benefits. The New York Appellate Division affirmed. The employee, a heavy equipment operator for the employer, was suspended after a building he owned was cited for numerous code violations. The court agreed the award was irrational because the employee's position was completely unrelated to the off-duty misconduct of which he was accused. CT – Employer was unable to establish arbitration award violated public policy.State
v. Connecticut State Employees (Connecticut 06/10/2008) The arbitrator sustained the employee’s grievance that he was unilaterally removed from the voluntary transfer list to another correctional facility. The trial court denied the employer’s motion to vacate the award. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed. The employee had been involved in a romantic relationship in 1994 which turned violent with another employee now at the transfer requested correction facility. The employer argued that the arbitration award violated the public policy against violence in the workplace. The court concluded that an executive order and two statutes established clearly defined and dominant public policy against workplace violence and sexual harassment. The court noted that the employer was unable to establish any negative workplace interaction between the two employees or proof that they were unable to work together and, thus, the employer did not meet its burden of demonstrating that the arbitration award violated public policy. PA – Employer's managerial prerogative trumped past practices.McCandless v. McCandless Police
(Pennsylvania Cmnwlth Ct 06/18/2008) The police officers' union appealed the trial court's order vacating a grievance arbitration award rendered in its favor. The court affirmed, concluding that the employer was exercising management prerogative when it adjusted one police officer's schedule in order to accommodate the military obligations of another. The court noted that although the arbitrator had relied upon "past practices" in support of his decision that the scheduling change violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA), "managerial prerogative cannot be abridged by a past practice."
|
|
Employment Law Editor: Ross Runkel,
Professor of Law Emeritus.
|
|
|
EEOC | NLRB | Supreme Court | Employment Law Blog | Arbitration Blog | Employment Law 101
