It was difficult for me to read Mayer Brown`s paeans before an arbitration tribunal without thinking of the thousands of workers who tried to impose arbitration applications, as their employment contracts demand, simply to see how their employers refuse to pay the fees necessary to launch their cases. Of course, only a handful of companies have been targeted so far in mass arbitration proceedings and it is not fair to think that all companies would react by raising doubts about workers` rights to conciliation. A new California law penalizes companies that refuse to pay arbitration fees, including repealing mandatory arbitration rules and removing companies from the right to impose arbitration. California employers are wondering whether to ask their employees to participate in a mandatory arbitration program do not have an easy task. They must consider the benefits and risks of arbitration and the impact that arbitration agreements can have on employee morale. In addition, employers must consider the applicability of arbitration agreements. The law on binding arbitration agreements for the working relationship is not clear in some areas. But there are a few general principles that employers should consider before implementing a mandatory arbitration program. In California, all contracts (including arbitration provisions) must be: to summarize, to increase the likelihood that an arbitration decision will not be considered materially unacceptable, it must be as neutral and reciprocal as possible. All restrictions imposed on the worker should also be imposed on the employer. All benefits, rights or remedies granted to the employer should also be granted to the worker.
A controversial California law that would have prevented employers from requiring arbitration agreements as a condition of employment has been enforced by a federal district judge. Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51) was scheduled to take effect last month, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, national Retail Federation, National Association of Security Companies and several other trade organizations, questioned the law and said it had been anticipated by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The FAA generally makes arbitration agreements “valid, irrevocable and enforceable” and has been expressly designed to reflect a national policy in favour of arbitration. Under the FAA, a state cannot enact or enforce laws that disrupt, restrict, treat unequally or discriminate remedies. The California Courts of Appeal have recently issued guidelines on these two points. In one case, the court found that an arbitration agreement may choose the FAA for enforcement issues (such as motions to compel arbitration) during the application of the CAA to procedural issues (e.g. B the selection of an arbitrator). This means that authors can choose between the FAA and the CAA for implementation and procedural issues, based on their objectives. In three other decisions, the courts have provided additional guidance on conditions that can be considered “unacceptable” – and perhaps overturn the entire arbitration agreement.