14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett: Into the Abyss between Judicial Process and Collectively Bargained Agreements to Arbitrate Individual Statutory Claims

24 Pages Posted: 30 Mar 2010 Last revised: 25 Apr 2011

Eric B. Sposito

National Labor Relations Board

Date Written: March 25, 2010

Abstract

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.

Keywords: 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett, arbitration of statutory claims, collective bargaining agreements, union arbitration

Suggested Citation

Sposito, Eric B., 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett: Into the Abyss between Judicial Process and Collectively Bargained Agreements to Arbitrate Individual Statutory Claims (March 25, 2010). Rutgers Law Record, Vol. 38, 2010-2011; Rutgers School of Law-Newark Research Paper No. 073. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1578623

Eric Bruce Sposito (Contact Author)

National Labor Relations Board ( email )

20 Washington Place
Newark, NJ 07102
United States

HOME PAGE: http://nrlb.gov

Paper statistics

Downloads
86
Rank
236,423
Abstract Views
581