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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll