Employers Beware: It's Once Again Time to Review Your Arbitration Agreements

09 September 2019 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Cristina Portela Solomon

We have been discussing arbitration agreements in the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) context lately, particularly with respect to class action waivers. But employers may not be aware that earlier this summer, the NLRB issued an opinion holding that arbitration agreements that could be “reasonably construed” to prohibit an employee from filing unfair labor practice charges with the board are invalid under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC 3368 NLRB No. 10 (June 18, 2019).

What is significant about this unanimous employee-friendly decision is that even if the language in your arbitration agreement does not expressly prohibit the filing of an NLRB charge (or accessing the Board or its processes), you may not be safe from a determination that your agreement is invalid. That is because most arbitration agreements contain general language mandating arbitration for “all claims or controversies for which a federal or state court would be authorized to grant relief,” and such language typically does not exclude NLRB charges. According to the recent opinion, such a clause violates the NLRA because it could be reasonably construed to prohibit employees from filing charges with the Board. It is also unclear from this decision whether a general savings clause, such as "nothing in this agreement is intended to interfere with employee's rights or violate the law” is sufficient to save an arbitration agreement.

Interestingly, while the employer in this case (Prime Healthcare) did not offer a justification for the scope of its arbitration agreement, the Board did not think that any legitimate justification was even possible. The Board explained, “[a]s a matter of law; there is not and cannot be any legitimate justification for provisions in an arbitration agreement or otherwise, that restricts an employee’s access to the Board or its process.”

Accordingly, the Board ordered rescission of the arbitration agreement (which the employer had already done). 

In practical terms, this opinion meant that the agreement then needed to be replaced with one that specifically excluded NLRB charges from mandatory arbitration. The opinion also required notifying current and former employees who signed the agreement that it was no longer in effect.

As the Prime Healthcare decision clearly instructs, employers who use arbitration agreements should take the following steps:

  • Review your arbitration agreements and specifically carve out the filing of administrative charges, including ones with the NLRB;
  • Do not rely (for now) on a general savings clause to salvage the agreement;
  • Do not think that you may be able to argue a legitimate justification for including NLRB charges within the scope of the arbitrable claims, as the NLRB has said there is not a legitimate justification for doing so.

Finally, be sure to keep up with further developments in this area, as this decision by a Republican – controlled NLRB has been controversial and may not be the last word. But for now, compliance is required!

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

When Birds Finally Find a Nest
17 September 2019
Dashboard Insights
Upcoming Webinar: Maximizing Solar Tax Credits - Navigating the Start of Construction Rules (Part 1)
17 September 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
DHS Moves Closer to Launching its H-1B Cap Registration System
16 September 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Be Aware of Potential Legal Restrictions When Implementing a Workplace Weapons Policy
16 September 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.