With lower revenues and a set of laws and regulations that must be respected in constantly changing, companies may be particularly vulnerable to the risk of collective action during and in the wake of the COVID 19 crisis. The Conrad decision focuses on a critical issue that must be considered in the development of arbitration agreements. To avoid ambiguities, arbitration agreements must be clear about the availability (or absence) of class arbitrations. Although the Supreme Court has made it clear that silence is not sufficient to obtain consent, Conrad shows that, in certain circumstances, consent may be indirectly inferred by other provisions of the agreement. It is therefore preferable to indicate in concrete terms whether the agreement excludes class actions and class actions. In the weeks following the ScotUS decision, organizations asked important and thoughtful questions about how to implement and use arbitration agreements and collective actions with their employees. Although no guide is one-size-fits-all, these FAQs can help address common problems. In addition, arbitration is not always less expensive than court proceedings, as the employer is generally required to pay his own legal fees as well as most arbitration and arbitration fees. There is also criticism and skepticism in conciliation, about the theory that arbitrators do not grant motions for rejection or summary judgment, or may try to “divide the baby” instead of making difficult decisions in favor of the employer. Finally, a distant but possible scenario in a tight labour market is that large employees may refuse to accept these binding agreements, resulting in the loss of good talent or skilled and experienced labour.
With respect to the second question, the Chamber found that the Assistant Director`s statements in response to staff concerns about the signing of the arbitration agreement were not contrary to the law. The Assistant Director of Employees distributed the revised agreement and stated that employees would be removed from the schedule if they refused to sign the agreement. After two employees objected to signing it, the assistant manager warned that he would “not bite the hand that fed me” and that he would instead “continue and sign”. The board justified this decision by the fact that the Deputy Director`s statements would not amount to an unlawful threat, since an employer can legitimately place the employment in the performance of an arbitration agreement by renouncing the class action. For this reason, the board described the Deputy Director`s statements as a simple explanation of the “legal consequences of not signing the agreement.” In late May, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that arbitration agreements between an employer and an employee to settle labor disputes by arbitration to one were not contrary to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). With a huge profit for businesses, the Epic Systems Corp. decision De Lewis means that employers can use arbitration agreements to prohibit and participate in collective or collective actions in employment-related matters. The pressure on the alternative world of dispute resolution to accommodate a dramatic increase in volume makes it possible to envisage a third or hybrid dispute resolution process, known as Med-Arb, the merging of the two established dispute resolution processes: mediation and arbitration. With respect to the first issue, the Board quashed the administrative judge`s finding that the respondent`s revised arbitration agreement contravened section 8 ( (a) (1) of the law, which made an employer an unfair labour practice to “impinge, limit or force workers in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.” The board justified this decision by the fact that an arbitration agreement prohibiting workers from opting for a class action because an employer maintains or can enforce declarations of waiver of class action and class action as a condition of employment without