最高法院是否会同意NLRB关于在司法和仲裁论坛中包含集体和集体诉讼弃权的争议前雇佣仲裁条款违反《国家劳动关系法》的说法——是否有选择退出?

C. O'Brien
{"title":"最高法院是否会同意NLRB关于在司法和仲裁论坛中包含集体和集体诉讼弃权的争议前雇佣仲裁条款违反《国家劳动关系法》的说法——是否有选择退出?","authors":"C. O'Brien","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2812224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Should employers be able to require individual employees to sign away their rights to collective action as a condition of employment? The National Labor Relations Board has held in D.R. Horton and Murphy Oil USA that when employers require employees to waive their right to “joint, class, or collective claims addressing wages, hours, or other working conditions against the employer in any forum, arbitral or judicial” as a condition of employment, this violates the NLRA. Even allowing prospective employees to opt out of such class waivers does not cure the violation in the NLRB’s view according to its decision in On Assignment Staffing Services. A circuit split has developed on enforcement of the Board’s orders on the class waiver issue with the Fifth and Eighth Circuits in particular denying the NLRB enforcement, while the Seventh and Ninth Circuits support the Board's position. There are many class waiver cases currently pending on appeal with over thirty awaiting resolution before the Fifth Circuit alone. The Supreme Court will likely be faced with deciding one of these appeals soon. Petitions for certiorari have been filed by Epic Systems and Ernst & Young regarding their losses at the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, the NLRB has petitioned the Court seeking to reverse the Fifth Circuit's refusal to enforce its decision in Murphy Oil, and employees have filed a petition regarding the Second Circuit's decision in Patterson v. Raymours Furniture. This article discusses the NLRB’s and courts’ positions from five recent cases involving class waivers in individual employment dispute agreements. It suggests how the courts and the Supreme Court should rule as well as the possibility of legislative action.","PeriodicalId":219760,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Will the Supreme Court Agree with the NLRB that Pre-Dispute Employment Arbitration Provisions Containing Class and Collective Action Waivers in Both Judicial and Arbitral Forums Violate the National Labor Relations Act – Whether There is an Opt-Out or Not?\",\"authors\":\"C. O'Brien\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2812224\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Should employers be able to require individual employees to sign away their rights to collective action as a condition of employment? The National Labor Relations Board has held in D.R. Horton and Murphy Oil USA that when employers require employees to waive their right to “joint, class, or collective claims addressing wages, hours, or other working conditions against the employer in any forum, arbitral or judicial” as a condition of employment, this violates the NLRA. Even allowing prospective employees to opt out of such class waivers does not cure the violation in the NLRB’s view according to its decision in On Assignment Staffing Services. A circuit split has developed on enforcement of the Board’s orders on the class waiver issue with the Fifth and Eighth Circuits in particular denying the NLRB enforcement, while the Seventh and Ninth Circuits support the Board's position. There are many class waiver cases currently pending on appeal with over thirty awaiting resolution before the Fifth Circuit alone. The Supreme Court will likely be faced with deciding one of these appeals soon. Petitions for certiorari have been filed by Epic Systems and Ernst & Young regarding their losses at the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, the NLRB has petitioned the Court seeking to reverse the Fifth Circuit's refusal to enforce its decision in Murphy Oil, and employees have filed a petition regarding the Second Circuit's decision in Patterson v. Raymours Furniture. This article discusses the NLRB’s and courts’ positions from five recent cases involving class waivers in individual employment dispute agreements. It suggests how the courts and the Supreme Court should rule as well as the possibility of legislative action.\",\"PeriodicalId\":219760,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law\",\"volume\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2812224\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2812224","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作为雇佣条件,雇主是否可以要求个别雇员签署放弃集体行动的权利?美国国家劳工关系委员会在D.R. Horton和美国墨菲石油公司案中裁定,当雇主要求雇员放弃“在任何仲裁或司法场合就工资、工时或其他工作条件向雇主提出联合、集体或集体索赔”作为雇佣条件时,这违反了NLRA。根据国家劳资关系委员会在《劳务派遣服务》中的决定,即使允许未来的雇员选择退出此类豁免,也不能解决违反规定的问题。在执行委员会关于集体豁免问题的命令方面,巡回法院出现了分歧,特别是第五和第八巡回法院否认NLRB的执行,而第七和第九巡回法院支持委员会的立场。目前有许多集体弃权案尚待上诉,仅第五巡回法院就有30多起案件等待裁决。最高法院可能很快将面临对其中一项上诉作出裁决。Epic Systems和Ernst & Young已经就他们在第七和第九巡回法院的损失提交了调卷申请,NLRB已经向法院请愿,试图推翻第五巡回法院拒绝执行其在墨菲石油案中的决定,员工们已经就第二巡回法院在Patterson v. Raymours Furniture案中的决定提交了请愿。这篇文章讨论了NLRB和法院的立场,从最近的五个案例涉及集体放弃个人就业纠纷协议。它提出了法院和最高法院应该如何裁决以及立法行动的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Will the Supreme Court Agree with the NLRB that Pre-Dispute Employment Arbitration Provisions Containing Class and Collective Action Waivers in Both Judicial and Arbitral Forums Violate the National Labor Relations Act – Whether There is an Opt-Out or Not?
Should employers be able to require individual employees to sign away their rights to collective action as a condition of employment? The National Labor Relations Board has held in D.R. Horton and Murphy Oil USA that when employers require employees to waive their right to “joint, class, or collective claims addressing wages, hours, or other working conditions against the employer in any forum, arbitral or judicial” as a condition of employment, this violates the NLRA. Even allowing prospective employees to opt out of such class waivers does not cure the violation in the NLRB’s view according to its decision in On Assignment Staffing Services. A circuit split has developed on enforcement of the Board’s orders on the class waiver issue with the Fifth and Eighth Circuits in particular denying the NLRB enforcement, while the Seventh and Ninth Circuits support the Board's position. There are many class waiver cases currently pending on appeal with over thirty awaiting resolution before the Fifth Circuit alone. The Supreme Court will likely be faced with deciding one of these appeals soon. Petitions for certiorari have been filed by Epic Systems and Ernst & Young regarding their losses at the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, the NLRB has petitioned the Court seeking to reverse the Fifth Circuit's refusal to enforce its decision in Murphy Oil, and employees have filed a petition regarding the Second Circuit's decision in Patterson v. Raymours Furniture. This article discusses the NLRB’s and courts’ positions from five recent cases involving class waivers in individual employment dispute agreements. It suggests how the courts and the Supreme Court should rule as well as the possibility of legislative action.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信