header-logo header-logo

29 November 2018 / Hannah Carroll
Issue: 7819 / Categories: Features , Profession , Employment , ADR
printer mail-detail

Out of court: forced arbitration

​Hannah Carroll considers the use of exclusive arbitration agreements in workplace disputes

  • Forced arbitration clauses.
  • Whether or not such agreements should be prevented in respect of some or all types of dispute.

Earlier this month an estimated 1,500 Google employees walked out of their offices in a collective protest sparked by the company’s alleged mishandling of sexual misconduct claims. One of the key issues on which protesters focused was the use of ‘forced arbitration’ in harassment and discrimination cases. Forced Arbitration refers to the practice of businesses entering into agreements with their workers which prevent the initiation of court proceedings in respect of certain workplace disputes.

It is often said that the foundation of arbitration as a dispute resolution procedure is the notion of respect for individual autonomy in resolving disputes. In general, parties are free to agree that any disputes that arise between them are resolved finally before an independent arbitral tribunal. Part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) requires that an arbitration agreement is evidenced in writing

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll