14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett: Into the Abyss between Judicial Process and Collectively Bargained Agreements to Arbitrate Individual Statutory Claims
Eric B. Sposito
National Labor Relations Board
March 25, 2010
Rutgers Law Record, Vol. 38, 2010-2011
Rutgers School of Law-Newark Research Paper No. 073
On April 1st, 2009 a bitterly divided United States Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-4, turned the world of labor arbitration on its head. The Court’s opinion in 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett overturned 35 years of jurisprudence, grounded in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. dictum, by establishing that collectively bargained clauses expressly authorizing the arbitration of statutory claims are enforceable, either compelling arbitration or precluding the grant of an award in a judicial action. Grounding their decision, in part, on the prominent “Steelworkers Trilogy” case United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel, the Court in Pyett narrowed the Gardner-Denver Court’s view on whether a union can waive a member’s right to seek judicial determination of a statutory right.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 24
Keywords: 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett, arbitration of statutory claims, collective bargaining agreements, union arbitrationAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: March 30, 2010 ; Last revised: April 25, 2011
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.235 seconds