"Workers' contracts" under the United States Arbitration Act: an essay in historical clarification
Article Abstract:
Judicial interpretation of Arbitration Act provisions limiting the usage of unilaterally imposed arbitration clauses in employment contracts has been unnecessarily narrow. Courts have found that the exemption only applies to workers in interstate transportation, such as railroad workers and seamen. The reason that the statute appeared to be limited to this small class of workers was that the scope of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce was far more limited in the 1920s. Under current law, the exemption from being subject to boilerplate arbitration clauses should be available to all workers within Congress' expanded interstate commerce power.
Publication Name: Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 1067-7666
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Capturing volition itself: employee involvement and the TEAM Act
Article Abstract:
The proposed 1997 amendment to section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act known as the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act (TEAM Act) would not resolve cooperative and collective bargaining models. Because employee involvement groups remain in the control of management, the TEAM Act does not further section 8(a)(2)'s goals to prevent management-run unions and promote industrial democracy. TEAM would also fail to fill the void left by membership-declining unions.
Publication Name: Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 1067-7666
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
On the interface between labor and employment law
Article Abstract:
It is unclear under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 whether employees under collective arbitration agreements can sue statutory claims apart from their agreements. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1974, in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., that statutory claims and grievances under collective bargaining agreements were separate. But the court ruled in 1991, in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., that an employee's claim was barred by his agreement to arbitrate.
Publication Name: Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 1067-7666
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: The concept of property and the Takings Clause. Taxation and the Constitution
- Abstracts: U.S. legal considerations affecting global offerings shares in foreign companies. International securities offerings - resent developments and current issues
- Abstracts: Theory of the firm: what a corporation is. Recent SEC enforcement cases
- Abstracts: Foreign courts view discovery more narrowly than their U.S. counterparts, giving rise to problems when foreign parties wind up in American courts
- Abstracts: E-FOIA and the "mother of all complaints:" information delivery and delay reduction. Why not administrative grand juries?