The National Labor Relation Board (NLRB) recently found that an employer cannot require employees to sign arbitration agreements that prohibit class action claims. D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184 (January 3, 2012)
This ruling applies to all employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), regardless of whether the employees have unionized or not. The Board held that the prohibition on class claims violates workers’ rights to engage in concerted activities under Section 7 of the NLRA and constitutes an unfair labor practice.
This case will be a tool for employees to further their rights in the workplace and will likely be challenged by many employers. However, for now, its one of the most significant cases since AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) ("Concepcion") (when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of class action waiver provisions in consumer arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act).
See the full opinion: www.state.il.us/court/CircuitCourt/CivilJuryInstructions/default.asp
This ruling applies to all employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), regardless of whether the employees have unionized or not. The Board held that the prohibition on class claims violates workers’ rights to engage in concerted activities under Section 7 of the NLRA and constitutes an unfair labor practice.
This case will be a tool for employees to further their rights in the workplace and will likely be challenged by many employers. However, for now, its one of the most significant cases since AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) ("Concepcion") (when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of class action waiver provisions in consumer arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act).
See the full opinion: www.state.il.us/court/CircuitCourt/CivilJuryInstructions/default.asp
RSS Feed