April 01, 2015
March 31, 2015
March 30, 2015
March 29, 2015
Advice Memo From NLRB Again Affirms D.R. Horton, Finds Employer Arbitration Agreement Unlawful
The NLRB continued to hold its position on arbitration agreements in an advice memorandum released last week, finding that an employer’s mandatory arbitration agreement violated the NLRA despite the fact that it explicitly excluded claims in front of the NLRB and was silent as to whether it prohibited arbitration on a class basis. The Division of Advice applied the Board’s holding in D.R. Horton, 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012), and held that the fact that the employer interpreted the agreement to prohibit class claims was enough for the agreement to restrict employee’s Section 7 rights.
The D.R. Horton case has been widely criticized as contradicting U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding arbitration (see AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion) and is currently on appeal at the Fifth Circuit.
The NLRB’s advice memo is Concord Honda, Case No. 32-CA-072231, available on the Board’s website here.
See our previous coverage of D.R. Horton:
- Kentucky Decision Requiring Arbitration Shows a Little Language Makes a Big Difference
- It’s Basic: Party Desiring Termination or Modification of CBA Must Notify FMCS (Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service) and All Applicable State Agencies
- Spanish-Speaking Employees and English Arbitration Agreements