Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Arbitration pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement held exclusive remedy for alleged discrimination

Arbitration pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement held exclusive remedy for alleged discrimination
14 Penn Plaza LLC et al. v Pyett et al., United States Supreme Court No.07-581

United States Supreme Court ruled that a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement that ?clearly and unmistakably? compels union members to arbitrate Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims instead of using EEOC and courts to resolve the issue controls.

Initially the union processed the complaint through the contract grievance procedure but while arbitration was ongoing, but after the Union withdrew the age-discrimination claims, Pyett and other employees filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that the employer had violated their rights under the ADEA. Approximately one month later, the EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights, which explained that the agency?s ??review of the evidence . . . fail[ed] to indicate that a violation ha[d] occurred,?? and notified each employee of his or her right to sue.

The employees then filed a lawsuit against the employer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that their work reassignment violated the ADEA and state and local laws prohibiting age discrimination. In response, the employer moved to compel arbitration.

This 5 to 4 decision reversed the Second Circuit?s decision that held that its decision in Alexander v Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 (1974), ?forbids enforcement of such arbitration provisions.?

Here the Supreme Court, referring to allegations of civil rights and discrimination complaints, said that the relevant collective bargaining agreement provided that ?All such claims shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedure [in the agreement] as the sole and exclusive remedy for violations.? The court said that there was good faith bargaining concerning employment-related discrimination claims, including claims brought under the ADEA. It was agreed that such claims would be resolved in arbitration. In the words of the Supreme Court, ?This freely negotiated term between the Union and the RAB easily qualifies as a ?conditio[n] of employment? that is subject to mandatory bargaining under §159(a) of the National Labor Relations Act.

However, an unresolved issue remained: could the CAB preclude a member from pursuing his or her statutory remedy in the event the union refuse to permit members to arbitrate their civil rights-related grievances? Quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 473 U. S., at 637, the Supreme Court pointed out that ?a substantive waiver of federally protected civil rights will not be upheld,? but that it was ?not positioned to resolve in the first instance whether the [instant] CBA allows the Union to prevent [employees] from ?effectively vindicating? their ?federal statutory rights in the arbitral forum.??

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-581.pdf

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on April 22, 2009 (boomark / email).