header-logo header-logo

Out of court: forced arbitration

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

​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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll