[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Center for Dispute Resolution
Center for Dispute Resolution
About CDR
CDR Faculty
Curriculum
Certificate in Dispute Resolution
Simulation Bank
CDR Alumni
Related LInks


Recent Developments
Subscribe Unsubscribe Recent News News Archive

 

 

Recent Developments in Dispute Resolution
Willamette University, College of Law
Center for Dispute Resolution

July 29, 2007 - August 4, 2007
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Arbitration: Liberal notice pleading in federal courts stands in contrast to the great deference accorded to
arbitration awards.
(7th Cir.).

2. Arbitration: Collective bargaining agreement arbitration clauses that waive an employee’s right to a federal
forum with respect to statutory claims are unenforceable.
(2d Cir.).

3. Mediation: Parties’ failure to agree on essential term precludes a finding that parties entered into a binding
settlement agreement.
(N.J. Super.A.D.).

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Arbitration: Liberal notice pleading in federal courts stands in contrast to the great deference accorded to
arbitration awards.
(7th Cir.).

Local 15, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO v. Excelon Corporation, 2007 WL 2177965
(7th Cir., July 31, 2007).

Exelon Corporation implemented an Automated Roster Call Out System (“ARCOS”) to summon employees who
are not already working when an emergency arises. Local 15 objected to the implementation of ARCOS, filed a
grievance, and the matter was submitted to arbitration under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
(“CBA”). The arbitrator ruled for Exelon, concluding it did not violate the CBA. Local 15 filed suit in district court to
challenge the arbitration award and the court dismissed for Local 15 failing to state a claim. On appeal, the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed holding that the liberal notice pleading standard stands in contrast to the great
deference accorded to arbitration awards. (MW).

Full opinion available on Westlaw.

Arbitration: Collective bargaining agreement arbitration clauses that waive an employee’s right to a federal
forum with respect to statutory claims are unenforceable.
(2d Cir.).

Pyett v. Pennsylvania Building Company, 2007 WL 2189126 (2d Cir., August 1, 2007).

Pyett was an employee of Temco, a building service and cleaning contractor, and Pyett worked as a night watchman
in a building owned by Pennsylvania Building Company (the “Company”). Pyett was a member of a union and covered
by a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) which contained a mandatory arbitration clause for discrimination claims.
Pyett was reassigned to a less desirable position as a night porter and filed a grievance with his union for age discrimination.
When the union did not pursue his grievence, Pyett filed a complaint with the EEOC, claiming violations of the ADEA, and
commenced an action against the Company. The Company moved to compel arbitration and the motion was denied. The
Company appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that CBA arbitration clauses, which purport to
waive employees’ rights to a federal forum with respect to statutory claims, are unenforceable. (MW).

Full opinion available online at Westlaw.

Mediation: Parties’ failure to agree on essential term precludes a finding that parties entered into a binding
settlement agreement.
(N.J. Super.A.D.).

JM Agency, Inc. v. NAS Financial Service, Inc., 2007 WL 2215393 (N.J. Super.A.D., August 3, 2007).

JM Agency sought recovery of commission for producing a client for NAS Financial. The parties went to mediation but could
not agree on the terms of a written settlement, specifically an admission of liability by NAS. NAS moved to enforce what it
believed to be settlement terms and the trial court granted the motion. JM Agency appealed. The appeals court reversed,
finding that JM Agency never intended to be bound to an agreement without an admission of liability by NAS. Further, the
court stated that the trial judge erred in requiring JM Agency to adequately explain why it required the stipulation of liability
and why it found that the admission of liability was not an essential term. (MW).


---------------------------

Summer Editors: Katrina Horn Simons, Matthew Walls
Faculty Advisors: Richard Birke, A. Lee Jordan
_______________________________________________
Dis-res mailing list
Dis-res@willamette.edu
http://lists.willamette.edu/mailman/listinfo/dis-res

 

 

[an error occurred while processing this directive]