The NLRB has ruled that overly broad arbitration agreements can violate the NLRA. More here. Some details:
On May 20, 2003, U-Haul distributed a mandatory arbitration policy to its employees that stated: "Your decision to accept employment or to continue employment with [U-Haul Co. of California] constitutes your agreement to be bound by the [U-Haul arbitration policy]." The policy "covers all disputes related to or arising out of an employee’s employment with UCC or the termination of that employment."
The upshot is that you're signing employees to an illegal contract (beware: the UCL lurks!) if you're overzealous with your arbitration agreement.
This is yet another example of why I caution employers not to go running to their attorneys every time a law firm's newsletter claims some new court ruling requies their arbitration agreements be re-written. Arbitration agreements can implicate literally every element of the complex state and federal web of employment laws. I urge employers to be conservative, and not to be part of an experimental avant garde with these.
In California, at least, even the mere act of signing employees to an illegal contract can give rise to liability under the UCL. Being overly agressive with these agreements may, therefore, not net any benefit to you--unless you like being the fee-paying guinea pig for a labor lawyer's experiments with the limits of the law.
UPDATE: Apropos of this, take a look at this article at law.com. "Arbitration's Fall From Grace."
Comments