No, certain types of rights should not be subject to arbitration. Non-scratchable rights under workers` compensation and unemployment laws should not be compromised. In addition, an arbitration agreement should not prohibit a staff member from submitting administrative fees to most government agencies, such as the Equal Employment Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The agreement may require that the employee be required to settle his own case through arbitration and not by the courts, but it cannot prevent the employee from laying a charge and subsequent investigation and possible enforcement by the competent authority. In April 2010, in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. and AnimalFeeds International Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that class claims could not be compelled to arbitration if the parties had only agreed to settle their individual rights. The Supreme Court`s decision was based on the issue of consent or its absence: both parties agreed that the arbitration agreement did not involve collective claims. One of the instruments to limit class and class actions is the waiver of class action, which is generally included in arbitration agreements. But a recent Fifth Circuit notice emphasizes the need to be cautious when developing agreements such as the mere existence of an arbitration agreement cannot always prevent class actions or class actions. By a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court ruled today that the federal arbitration law does not allow a court to impose class arbitration if the agreement does not clearly provide for it.

As a result, employers whose valid arbitration agreements do not include an explicit waiver of class actions (provided they do not explicitly accept class arbitration proceedings) may easily know that the agreements allow them to compel so-called class rights to individual arbitration (Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela). Mr. McFerran also considered the Deputy Director`s statements on the remoteness of the work plan to be an illegal threat that violated Section 7 of the Act. Member McFerran interpreted the Assistant Director`s statements as an attempt to silence the discussion after the staff had exercised their section 7 right, raising concerns and questions about the revised arbitration agreement. Mr. McFerran stated that a reasonable employee would have understood the Deputy Director`s statement as a threat to withdraw the schedule and/or dismissal to raise concerns about the terms of employment.

In late May, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that arbitration agreements between an employer and an employee to settle labor disputes by arbitration to one were not contrary to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). With a huge profit for businesses, the Epic Systems Corp. decision De Lewis means that employers can use arbitration agreements to prohibit and participate in collective or collective actions in employment-related matters. The fifth circuit probably ignored the discussion on Lamps Plus because the standard used by the courts to verify the interpretation of an arbitration agreement by an arbitrator is very suspensive. As the Fifth Circle wrote, the court only has to ascertain whether the arbitrator`s decision has “some basis in the arbitration agreement” and states that “the correctness of the arbitrator`s interpretation is irrelevant as long as it was an interpretation.” (Highlighted in the original). Although the employer did not expressly consent to class conciliation, the arbitrator found sufficient language to conclude that such consent was implied.