November 09, 2012
An NLRB Administrative Law Judge has issued a decision finding
that 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. maintained and enforced an unlawful
arbitration policy that required employees to give up their federally
protected rights to take concerted action.
The California-based corporation, which operates fitness centers
across the country, required new employees to agree in writing to submit
all employment-related claims to individual arbitration. Employees were
also prohibited from discussing such claims with their co-workers.
The employee handbook advised employees they could opt out of the
policy by taking a series of steps. However, Judge William L. Schmidt
found that the provision was “an illusion” because the process was
“convoluted” and because employees would be unable to identify others
who had also opted out with whom they could discuss their case.
Judge Schmidt relied on the Board’s recent decision in DR Horton,
which detailed Appellate and Supreme Court decisions dating back to the
1940s reaffirming the principle that “employers cannot enter into
individual agreements with employees in which the employees cede their
statutory rights to act collectively.”
He rejected the arguments of 24 Hour Fitness and the Chamber of
Commerce, which filed an amicus brief in the case, saying they wished
“to establish an employer’s right to restrict employees, in order to
hold a job, from exercising their statutory right to use the full-range
of legal remedies generally available to all citizens.”
The fitness center operator successfully pursued enforcement of the
individual arbitration clause in at least eight lawsuits filed by
employees at several California facilities alleging discrimination and
wage and hour violations.
In his decision, Judge Schmidt ordered the company to remove the
prohibition against class or collective actions from the employee
handbook, and to notify all employees of the change. He also ordered 24
Hour Fitness to notify all arbitral or judicial tribunals where it has
pursued enforcement of the clause that it desires to withdraw the
request.
http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment