Union/management arbitration proceedings are often the end of the redress procedure for workers covered by a collective agreement. Material scruples consider the fairness of the procedure within the framework of the agreement in relation to what a worker would otherwise have in the public judicial system. Does the provision of the Court of Arbitration remove certain claims that could have been invoked in a court, such as? B the requirement for a penalty that might be available under the law for arrears in the payment of wages? Or does the arbitration court provision eliminate remedies that might otherwise be available? These and other similar problems constitute a restriction of the material rights of the worker and may be unscrupulous in substance. While the concept of arbitration sounds a bit confusing, it`s not necessary. You can learn with the click of a button. An employment law expert can answer your questions, advise you on the law in your country and see what applies to your situation. When the workers filed their appeal, the employer filed a request for arbitration. The court dismissed the motion to declare the arbitration contract «contract of adhesion» invalid (in which the worker did not have the opportunity to negotiate his terms) and also found that several of the provisions of the contract were «so one-sided that they shock the conscience» of the court. The court insisted that only workers who asserted rights against the employer should be obliged to settle their rights, and not the other way around. In addition, the court was insulted by the limitation period for damages and the lack of detection (investigation of facts) permitted by the provisions of the arbitration agreement.
Their last option is to sign the agreement, but with some modifications….