Arbitration in the United States
|This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2007)|
Arbitration, in the context of United States law, is a form of alternative dispute resolution — specifically, a legal alternative to litigation whereby the parties to a dispute agree to submit their respective positions (through agreement or hearing) to a neutral third party (the arbitrator(s) or arbiter(s)) for resolution. In practice arbitration is generally used as a substitute for judicial systems, particularly when the judicial processes are viewed as too slow, expensive or biased. Arbitration is also used by communities which lack formal law, as a substitute for formal law.
Arbitration may also serve a distinct purpose: as an alternative to strikes and lockouts as a means of resolving labor disputes. Labor arbitration comes in two varieties: interest arbitration, which provides a method for resolving disputes about the terms to be included in a new contract when the parties are unable to agree, and grievance arbitration, which provides a method for resolving disputes over the interpretation and application of a collective bargaining agreement.
- 1 Species of Arbitration
- 2 Validity of arbitration clauses
- 3 Timeliness and the Non-Existence of Arbitration Agreements
- 4 Proceedings
- 5 Arbitrators
- 6 Umpire
- 7 Arbitration on television
- 8 Arbitration Fairness Act
- 9 See also
- 10 References
- 11 Footnotes
- 12 External links
Species of Arbitration
Commercial and other forms of contract arbitration
Agreements to arbitrate were not enforceable at common law, though once the parties had actually submitted a pending dispute to an arbitrator, the arbitrator's judgment was usually enforceable. The reasoning for this was that the power of the arbitrator arose solely from the mutual consent of the parties to his jurisdiction; but by the time a dispute reached the point that one party wished to take it to an arbitrator, the other often preferred to take their chances in court instead. Thus, without the consent of both parties to his jurisdiction, the arbitrator lacked the power to decide the case.
During the Industrial Revolution, large corporations became increasingly opposed to this policy. They argued that too many valuable business relationships were being destroyed through years of expensive adversarial litigation, in courts whose rules differed significantly from the informal norms and conventions of businesspeople (the private law of commerce, or jus merchant). Arbitration was promoted as being faster, less adversarial, and cheaper.
The result was the New York Arbitration Act of 1920, followed by the United States Arbitration Act of 1925 (now known as the Federal Arbitration Act). Both made agreements to arbitrate valid and enforceable (unless one party could show fraud or unconscionability or some other ground for rescission which undermined the validity of the entire contract). Due to the subsequent judicial expansion of the meaning of interstate commerce, the U.S. Supreme Court reinterpreted the FAA in a series of cases in the 1980s and 1990s to cover almost the full scope of interstate commerce. In the process, the Court held that the FAA preempted many state laws covering arbitration, some of which had been passed by state legislatures to protect their consumers against powerful corporations.
Since commercial arbitration is based upon either contract law or the law of treaties, the agreement between the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration is a legally binding contract. All arbitral decisions are considered to be "final and binding." This does not, however, void the requirements of law. Any dispute not excluded from arbitration by virtue of law (for example, criminal proceedings) may be submitted to arbitration.
Furthermore, arbitration agreements can only bind parties who have agreed, expressly or impliedly to arbitrate. Arbitration cannot bind nonsignatories to an arbitration contract, even if those nonsignatories later become involved with a signatory to a contract by accident (usually through the commission of a tort).
Arbitration has also been used as a means of resolving labor disputes for more than a century. Labor organizations in the United States, such as the National Labor Union, called for arbitration as early as 1866 as an alternative to strikes to resolve disputes over the wages, benefits and other rights that workers would enjoy. Governments have also relied on arbitration to resolve particularly large labor disputes, such as the Coal Strike of 1902. This type of arbitration, wherein a neutral arbitrator decides the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, is commonly known as interest arbitration. The United Steelworkers of America adopted an elaborate form of interest arbitration, known as the Experimental Negotiating Agreement, in the 1970s as a means of avoiding the long and costly strikes that had made the industry vulnerable to foreign competition. Major League Baseball uses a variant of interest arbitration, in which an arbitrator chooses between the two sides' final offers, to set the terms for contracts for players who are not eligible for free agency. Interest arbitration is now most frequently used by public employees who have no right to strike (for example, law enforcement and firefighters).
Unions and employers have also employed arbitration to resolve employee and union grievances arising under a collective bargaining agreement. The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America made arbitration a central element of the Protocol of Peace it negotiated with garment manufacturers in the second decade of the twentieth century. Grievance arbitration became even more popular during World War II, when most unions had adopted a no-strike pledge. The War Labor Board, which attempted to mediate disputes over contract terms, pressed for inclusion of grievance arbitration in collective bargaining agreements. The Supreme Court subsequently made labor arbitration a key aspect of federal labor policy in three cases which came to be known as the Steelworkers' Trilogy. The Court held that grievance arbitration was a preferred dispute resolution technique and that courts could not overturn arbitrators' awards unless the award does not draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement. State and federal statutes may allow vacating an award on narrow grounds (e.g., fraud). These protections for arbitrator awards are premised on the union-management system, which provides both parties with due process. Due process in this context means that both parties have experienced representation throughout the process, and that the arbitrators practice only as neutrals. See National Academy of Arbitrators.
In the United States securities industry, arbitration has long been the preferred method of resolving disputes between brokerage firms, and between firms and their customers. The securities industry uses a pre-dispute arbitration agreement, where the parties agree to arbitrate their disputes before any such dispute arises. Those agreements were upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Shearson v. MacMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987) and today nearly all disputes involving brokerage firms are resolved in arbitration. Securities class action claims, however, are not arbitrable.
The process operates under its own rules, and is described in an article Introduction to Securities Arbitration. Securities arbitrations are held primarily by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA").
Some state court systems have promulgated court-ordered arbitration; family law (particularly child custody) is the most prominent example. Judicial arbitration is often merely advisory dispute resolution technique, serving as the first step toward resolution, but not binding either side and allowing for trial de novo. Litigation attorneys present their side of the case to an independent teritary lawyer, who issues an opinion on settlement. Should the parties in question decide to continue to dispute resolution process, there can be some sanctions imposed from the initial arbitration per terms of the contract.
Validity of arbitration clauses
The validity of arbitration clauses in the US is not a settled legal matter. Typically, the validity of an arbitration clause is decided by a court rather than an arbitrator. However, if the validity of the entire arbitration agreement is in dispute, then the Supreme Court of the United States case of Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson may apply. In that case, the court held that "under the FAA, where an agreement to arbitrate includes an agreement that the arbitrator will determine the enforceability of the agreement, if a party challenges specifically the enforceability of that particular agreement, the district court considers the challenge, but if a party challenges the enforceability of the agreement as a whole, the challenge is for the arbitrator." In other words, the law typically allows federal courts to decide these types of "gateway" or validity questions, but the Supreme Court ruled that since Jackson targeted the entire contract rather than a specific clause, the arbitrator decided the validity. Public Citizen, an advocacy organization opposed to the enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements, characterized the decision negatively: "the court said that companies can write their contracts so that the companies' own arbitrator decides whether it's fair to submit a case to that arbitrator."
In insurance law, arbitration is complicated by the fact that insurance is regulated at the state level under the McCarran–Ferguson Act. From a federal perspective, however, a circuit court ruling has determined that McCarran-Ferguson requires a state statute rather than administrative interpretations. The Missouri Department of Insurance attempted to block a binding arbitration agreement under its state authority, but since this action was based only on a policy of the department and not on a state statute, the United States district court found that the Department of Insurance did not have the authority to invalidate the arbitration agreement.
In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2011), the Supreme Court of the United States upheld an arbitration clause in a consumer standard form contract which waived the right to a lawsuit and class action. However, this clause was relatively generous in that the business paid all fees unless the action was determined to be frivolous and a small-claims court action remained available; these types of protections are recommended for the contract to remain enforceable and not unconscionable.
Timeliness and the Non-Existence of Arbitration Agreements
||This section possibly contains original research. (October 2011)|
Generally, a person who opposes an arbitration award must file a motion to vacate the award within three months of the date in which the award was either entered or delivered. However, it is by no means a settled legal matter whether or not this time limit applies when the person moving to vacate is challenging, not the award itself, but the very contractual obligation to arbitrate in the first place.
Some states, such as Texas, Washington, and Tennessee have held that the time limit does apply, even when you dispute the existence of an arbitration agreement in the first place. Texas is particularly consumer-unfriendly in this respect. In that state, not only does the time limit apply, no matter on what grounds you dispute the award, but even if you are within the three month time limit, "[t]he nonexistence of an arbitration agreement is not one of the grounds upon which an arbitration award may be vacated under the FAA," effectively allowing anyone in Texas to unilaterally file arbitrations against anyone else, contract or no contract, and the other party who did not want to arbitrate is left without recourse.
Missouri takes a slightly more consumer-friendly approach, but still largely favors proponents of arbitration. Missouri recognizes lack of an arbitration agreement as a grounds to vacate, but still requires the person seeking vacature to prove that there was no agreement to arbitrate, effectively requiring the opponent of arbitration to prove a negative.
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, however, has taken the opposite approach, and argued that the three month time limit is not triggered until there is an agreement to arbitrate. Arkansas has adopted the First Circuit's approach to the issue. However, neither of these cases specify whether or not the opponent to the arbitration has the burden of proof, like in Missouri.
Various bodies of rules have been developed that can be used for arbitration proceedings. The two most important are the UNCITRAL rules and the ICSID rules. The rules to be followed by the arbitrator are specified by the agreement establishing the arbitration.
The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (Done at New York, 10 June 1958; Entered into force, 7 June 1959; 330 U.N.T.S. 38, 1959) provides for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards on the territory of the contracting parties. Similar provisions are contained in the earlier Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards (Done at Geneva, 26 September 1927; Entered into force, 25 July 1929; L.N.T.S. ???).
Some jurisdictions have instituted a limited grace period during which an arbitral decision may be appealed against, but after which there can be no appeal. In the case of arbitration under international law, a right of appeal does not in general exist, although one may be provided for by the arbitration agreement, provided a court exists capable of hearing the appeal.
When arbitration occurs under U.S. law, either party to an arbitration may appeal from the arbitrator's decision to a court, however the court will generally not change the arbitrator's findings of fact but will decide only whether the arbitrator was guilty of malfeasance, or whether the arbitrator exceeded the limits of his or her authority in the arbitral award or whether the award conflicts with positive law. The Supreme Court has described the standard of review as one of the narrowest known to Western jurisprudence. Wherever so seen, arbitration may be the best approach to the legal manners and parties involved.
Arbitrators have wide latitude in crafting remedies in the arbitral decision, with the only real limitation being that they may not exceed the limits of their authority in their award. An example of exceeding arbitral authority might be awarding one party to a dispute the personal automobile of the other party when the dispute concerns the specific performance of a business-related contract.
It is open to the parties to restrict the possible awards that the abitrator can make. If this restriction requires a straight choice between the position of one party or the position of the other, then it is known as pendulum arbitration or final offer arbitration. It is designed to encourage the parties to moderate their initial positions so as to make it more likely they receive a favourable decision.
No definitive statement can be made concerning the credentials or experience levels of arbitrators, although some jurisdictions have elected to establish standards for arbitrators in certain fields. Several independent organizations, such as the American Arbitration Association and the National Arbitration Forum, offer arbitrator training programs and thus in effect, credentials. Generally speaking, however, the credibility of an arbitrator rests upon reputation, experience level in arbitrating particular issues, or expertise/experience in a particular field. Arbitrators are generally not required to be members of the legal profession.
To ensure effective arbitration and to increase the general credibility of the arbitral process, arbitrators will sometimes sit as a panel, usually consisting of three arbitrators. Often the three consist of an expert in the legal area within which the dispute falls (such as contract law in the case of a dispute over the terms and conditions of a contract), an expert in the industry within which the dispute falls (such as the construction industry, in the case of a dispute between a homeowner and his general contractor), and an experienced arbitrator.
The umpire is a third party chosen either by the method of the arbitral parties or by a court to render an independent decision usually in labour disputes when the arbitrators disagree on something. Umpire is another word for "arbitrator" or an arbitrator appointed to resolve an arbitration when the arbitrators can't agree.
Arbitration on television
Arbitration Fairness Act
- Arbitration award
- Consumer arbitration
- Dispute resolution
- Expert determination
- London Court of International Arbitration
- Special referee
- Tort reform
- UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
- National Arbitration Forum
- National Academy of Arbitrators
- Jerold S. Auerbach, Justice Without Law?: Non-Legal Dispute Settlement in American History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983).
- Mark J. Astarita, Esq., Introduction to Securities Arbitration (SECLaw.com, 2000 - www.seclaw.com/arbover.htm)
- David Sherwyn, Bruce Tracey & Zev Eigen. "In Defense of Mandatory Arbitration of Employment Disputes: Saving the Baby, Tossing out the Bath Water, and Constructing a New Sink in the Process," 2 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 73 (1999); n.b., abbreviated source in this legal citation format is the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor and Employment Law, Vol. 2, p. 73.
- Ed Brunet, J.D., Arbitration Law in America: A Critical Assessment, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
- Gary Born, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts (Aspen 4th ed. 2006) (with Bo Rutledge) (3rd ed. 1996) (2nd ed. 1992) (1st ed. 1989)
- County of Contra Costa v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 47 Cal. App. 4th 237 (1996). Kaiser Permanente argued in this case unsuccessfully that third parties who injure Kaiser members should be forced to arbitrate cross-claims against Kaiser.
- "Guide to Arbitration in New York". CMS Legal. Retrieved 10 May 2012.
- Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson. Supreme Court of the United States.
- High Court Favors Arbitrator In Rent-A-Center Case. Law360.com.
- "Congress Must Undo Damage of U.S. Supreme Court’s Latest Anti-Consumer Decision". May 17, 2011. Retrieved 2011-01-12.
- Wenzel KA. (2004). THE VALIDITY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS IN INSURANCE POLICIES. FORC Journal 15(4).
- Horton D. (2012). Federal Arbitration Act Preemption, Purposivism, and State Public Policy. Forthcoming in Georgetown Law Journal.
- Preventing the Runaway Arbitration: Practical Strategies and Solutions. ABA.
- 9 U.S.C. § 12
- "Brust v. MBNA America Bank".
- "MBNA American Bank, N.A. v. Robert Miles, 140 Wn. App. 511, 164 P.3d 514 (2007)".
- "MBNA AMERICA BANK, NA v. Akers, Tenn: Court of Appeals 2009".
- "FindACase - Brust v. MBNA America Bank". Retrieved June 3, 2011.
- "CACV of Colorado, LLC v. Muhlhausen".
- "MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Exalon Indus. Inc., 138 F.3d 426, 429 (1st Cir. 1998)".
- "Danner v. MBNA America Bank".
- National Arbitration Forum
- 9 U.S.C. § 5
- Umpire" USlegal.com
- Read actual arbitration awards and find arbitrator's resumes at GVSU
- American Arbitration Association's Home Page
- Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (UK, elsewhere) Web Site
- Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Irish Branch)
- the Global Arbitration Mediation Association.
- The Arbitration Database.
- An Example of Labor Arbitration in the United States (Vulcan Iron Works and the Machinists' Union, 1981).