Eleventh Circuit holds that arbitration agreement in collective bargaining contract for seamen is enforceable ...

Eleventh Circuit holds that arbitration agreement in collective bargaining contract for seamen is enforceable under Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which supersedes relevant portions of the Seaman’s Wage Act

His employer, Celebrity Cruises, Inc. (Defendant) required Ignacio Eufemio Lobo (Plaintiff), a stateroom attendant on a passenger ship, to share his gratuities with his assistant by paying the assistant $1.20 per passenger per day from his own earnings. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant imposed this requirement through duress as a result of the unequal bargaining position of the parties. This requirement breaches the collective bargaining agreement governing the terms of his employment, which include gratuities as part of a stateroom attendant’s pay.

Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court. The Defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds that, pursuant to the same collective bargaining agreement, his wage claim must be sent to arbitration. Plaintiff responded that the arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement was invalid because it conflicted with both the Seaman’s Wage Act which gives seamen the right to access federal courts to resolve wage disputes, 46 U.S.C. Section 10313, and the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. Arguelles, 400 U.S. 351 (1971). The district court dismissed the complaint ruling that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the Convention) 9 U.S.C. Sections 202‑208 the Seaman’s Wage Act and Arguelles had been superseded by. Plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The Court affirms, holding that the Convention superseded the Seaman’s Wage Act and that Arguelles did not apply here.

“In Arguelles, the Court considered whether the provisions of the Seaman’s Wage Act were displaced by the subsequent enactment of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), which ‘provides a federal remedy to enforce grievance and arbitration provisions of collective‑bargaining agreements’ in commercial industries. Supra, at 352. The Supreme Court held that the LMRA did not abrogate the Seaman’s Wage Act remedy.” [Slip op. 2].

In the Court’s view, “the underlying basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in Arguelles was the fact that there was nothing in the language or legislative history of the LMRA to indicate an intent to abrogate the statutory right to sue in federal court afforded by the Seaman’s Wage Act.” [Slip op. 3].

On the other hand, in discussing the Convention, the Court determined that “Congress explicitly agreed to ‘recognize an agreement in writing under which the parties undertake to submit to arbitration all or any differences which have arisen . . . between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not, concerning a subject matter capable of settlement by arbitration.’ Convention, Article II(1). Indeed, the Convention compels federal courts to direct qualifying disputes to arbitration.” In light of this distinction the Court held that “to nullify the arbitration provision here would hinder the purpose of the Convention and subvert congressional intent.” [Slip op. 4].

Citation: Lobo v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 488 F.3d 891 (11th Cir. 2007).

Bill protecting workers from forced arbitration awaits Governor approval

Bill protecting workers from forced arbitration awaits Governor approval

1 Sep 2015 by Curt Surls, Attorney

What good is a law designed to protect your rights in the workplace if your employer can coerce you into waiving those rights as a condition of employment?  Not much good at all.  But the good news is that a recent bill passed by the California Legislature will prevent unscrupulous employers from strong-arming workers into waiving important rights.

AB 465, which is awaiting the Governor’s signature, would ban the practice of requiring workers to waive any of their rights, forums and procedures guaranteed by the California Labor Code.  The “forum and procedures” language is critical, because it targets the widespread practice of forcing employees to sign mandatory arbitration clauses.  Ending this abusive tactic is at the heart of what AB 465 seeks to accomplish.

Arbitration clauses are everywhere: in credit card agreements, in hospital admission forms, and in any number of lengthy, legalistic documents you routinely sign without bothering to read.  But arbitration clauses have become especially prevalent in the workplace.  Under current California law, your employer can fire you if you refuse to agree to submit all of your employment-related disputes to arbitration.

What’s wrong with arbitration?  Nothing at all, if the decision to arbitrate is made knowingly and voluntarily by all parties.   But coerced arbitration is inherently unfair to the employee and skews the balance of power further in the direction of the employer.   Instead of having your dispute heard by a court or state agency – institutions relatively immune to undue influence by the employer – your case will be decided by an individual paid by the employer, pursuant to a process designed by the employer or by the arbitration provider selected by the employer.

Do you want to go to the Labor Commissioner or other state agency over wage, working conditions or occupational safety issues?  Too bad.  You’ve agreed to private arbitration.   Do you want to band together with co-workers and file a class action to address wage theft, misclassification, or other issues best decided on a collective basis?  Too bad.   And if you’re an immigrant worker with a limited command of English, you may not even know that you’ve agreed to private arbitration.  Again, too bad.  Still enforceable.

But not if Governor Brown signs the bill.  If it becomes law, this bill will prevent employers from coercing you to waive any right guaranteed by the California Labor Code as a condition of employment, including your right to take your employer to court or file a complaint with a government agency.

This bill doesn’t solve all the problems workers face in the world of mandatory arbitration since it only applies to Labor Code violations.  That means it does not apply to workplace anti-discrimination provisions, which are part of a separate Code.  You can still be fired for refusing to submit your discrimination, retaliation or harassment claims to arbitration.  For now.

Mandatory arbitration may be an idea whose time has come and is now, finally, going.  Last year, the California Legislature passed a bill prohibiting mandatory waivers of the right to go to court for certain “hate crimes.”  President Obama signed an Executive Order prohibiting employers with federal contracts from requiring their employees to sign mandatory arbitration clauses.  AB 465 is an important next step in what workers’ rights advocates hope will be the dismantling of the mandatory arbitration machine employers have constructed.