Download Collective Agreements and Law: The Interplay between Arbitration and Statutory Claims and more Slides Labour Law in PDF only on Docsity! Relationship between collective agreement/arbitration and law Docsity.com Alexander v. Gardner-Denver 416 U.S. 36 (1974) • Voluntary filing of a grievance under a CBK alleging discrimination does not foreclose employee from filing suit under Title VII • ee must meet jurisdictional requirements – CBA does not waive an employee’s statutory rights – arbitration and EEOC/courts different forums with different authority • arb - interpret CBK • EEOC - enforce Title VII Docsity.com Wright (continued) • Incorporation of statutory law in CBK does not alter fact that this a statutory claim, not a claim under CBK • Presumption of arbitrability only extends to those issues which can be decided better by arbitrators than by courts - issues under CBK, not a federal statute • Waiver of statutory rights must be “clear and unmistakable; must be “explicitly stated” in CBK – Court unwilling to infer a Gilmer-like individual waiver of statutory rights from a collective agreement • No explicit incorporation in agreement of ADA, as there was with OSHA Docsity.com Relationship Between External Law and CBA • “The dispute in the present case, however, ultimately concerns not the application or interpretation of any CBA, but the meaning of a federal statute. The cause of action Wright asserts arises not out of contract, but out of the ADA, and is distinct from any right conferred by the collective-bargaining agreement. . . . To be sure, respondents argue that Wright is not qualified for his position as the CBA requires, but even if that were true he would still (emphasis in original) prevail if the refusal to hire violated the ADA.” Docsity.com 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, U.S. Supreme Court, 105 FEP Cases 1441, 4/1/09 • Employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement that requires all discrimination claims to be submitted to the grievance and arbitration procedure as the sole and exclusive remedy does not have the right to file a federal anti-discrimination claim through EEOC and courts; e.g., the agreement to arbitrate statutory claims is enforceable Docsity.com Penn Plaza Rationale (cont.) • Gardner-Denver – addressed question of whether an arbitration provision could preclude an employee from pursuing a subsequent statutory claim • No requirement in CBA that discrimination claims must be submitted to grievance and arbitration procedure – did not address question of whether CBA that requires arbitration of such claims enforceable • Penn Plaza does not involve a waiver of statutory right to remedy ADEA claims, only a change in forum Docsity.com Penn Plaza Rationale (cont.) • Courts over the past three decades have become increasingly comfortable with arbitration as a means of resolving statutory disputes • Possibility that individual interests of employee will be subordinated to collective union interests irrelevant – Not part of statutory structure – NLRA had majority rule as governing principle • Union actions limited by – Union duty of fair representation – Union liability under ADEA for discrimination Docsity.com Penn Plaza Dissents • Stevens: No reason to overrule precedent – No changes in governing statute – Court views on superiority of judiciary to address discrimination claims still relevant (Gardner Denver) – Union has no authority to waive a judicial forum for a represented employee (Wright) • Individual employee may waive own right (Gilmer) • Souter: Precedent should not be overruled – Majoritarian nature of CB unsuited to enforcing individual rights – All courts of appeals have supported principle that CBA cannot waive individual federal rights Docsity.com
