Search form

Class and Collective Action Waivers Lawful under NLRA, Eighth Circuit Finds, Contrary to Seventh Circuit

By Philip B. Rosen, Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris, Howard M. Bloom, Samia M. Kirmani, David E. Nagle and Robert J. Guidotti
  • June 3, 2016

The National Labor Relations Board erred in determining that a company violated the National Labor Relations Act by maintaining and enforcing a mandatory arbitration agreement which prohibited employees from bringing or participating in class or collective actions to redress employment-related disputes in any forum, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, has held. Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC v. NLRB, No. 15-1620 (June 2, 2016).  (The Court agreed with the Board that the company’s employees would reasonably understand the arbitration agreement to waive or impede their rights to file unfair labor practice charges with the Board, in violation of the NLRA.)

The Eighth Circuit has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

This decision was released just days following the Seventh Circuit’s holding to the contrary in Lewis v. Epic Systems and underscores that the issue is ripe for U.S. Supreme Court review. For more on Lewis, see our article, Supreme Court Review Likely After Seventh Circuit Creates Split on Class and Collective Action Waivers under NLRA.

Background

John Bauer, formerly an independent contractor for Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC, was hired by the company as an employee in January 2012. As a condition of his employment, Bauer entered into an employment agreement that included a provision under which he agreed to arbitrate individually “[a]ll claims, disputes, or controversies” related to his employment and to waive any class or collective proceeding.

After he was terminated from Cellular Sales Bauer filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board, claiming that Cellular Sales violated his right to engage in protected concerted activity of the NLRA when it required him to sign an arbitration agreement that included a class-action waiver.

The Board issued a complaint, and an administrative law judge (ALJ), relying on the NLRB’s D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 N.L.R.B. No. 184 (Jan. 3, 2012), ruled in favor of the Board, concluding that Cellular Sales’s arbitration agreement violated the NLRA because of its individual arbitration requirement and because employees would reasonably interpret the arbitration agreement as barring or restricting their rights to file unfair labor practice charges with the Board. The ALJ also concluded that Cellular Sales had violated the NLRA by moving to dismiss Bauer’s putative class-action lawsuit and compel enforcement of the arbitration agreement. The Board affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s rulings and findings.

Eighth Circuit Decision

The Eighth Circuit held that employment arbitration agreements may bar class and collective actions.

The Court previously had rejected the NLRB’s decision in D.R. Horton. In D.R. Horton, the Board concluded that arbitration agreements that barred all forms of employee class actions, which the Board deemed to be protected concerted activity, violated the NLRA. The Court, in a case that was not on review from a Board decision, found the agreement did not preclude an employee from filing a complaint with an administrative agency, which then could file suit on behalf of a class of employees. Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., 702 F.3d 1050, 1053-55 (8th Cir. 2013). Moreover, even if D.R. Horton did apply, the Eighth Circuit noted it does not owe deference to the NLRB’s D.R. Horton.

The Eighth Circuit granted the employer’s petition for review and denied enforcement of the Board’s order on this issue.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

November 15, 2017

Top Five Labor Law Developments for October 2017

November 15, 2017

Home health aides who successfully objected to the collection of “fair share” fees without their consent may not proceed as a class, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, has ruled, affirming a lower court’s determination. Riffey v. Rauner, No. 16-3487 (7th Cir. Oct. 11, 2017). The home health aides... Read More

November 3, 2017

What Did National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Richard Griffin’s Term Mean for Employers?

November 3, 2017

Richard F. Griffin, Jr.’s term as National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel (GC) was marked by a dogged defense and pursuit of bolstering the rights of unions and employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Griffin, a former general counsel for the International Union of Operating Engineers, was the NLRB GC... Read More

November 2, 2017

Class Action Trends Report Fall 2017

November 2, 2017

Our quarterly report discusses new developments in class action litigation and offers strategic guidance and tactical tips on how to defend such claims. This issue covers the following topics: Minimum wage traps Prevention pointer The legislation (Not) Only in California Regulatory roundup Class action trends—the top ten... Read More