El arbitraje laboral individualizado como nueva forma de pacto duro de seguridad sindical. Su controvertido enjuiciamiento por la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en el caso Epic Systems Corp. V. Lewis (2018)

  1. Arufe Varela, Alberto 1
  2. Martínez Girón, Jesús 1
  1. 1 Universidade da Coruña
    info

    Universidade da Coruña

    La Coruña, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01qckj285

Journal:
Revista crítica de relaciones de trabajo, Laborum

ISSN: 2792-7962,  2792-7970

Year of publication: 2023

Issue: 7

Pages: 177-190

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista crítica de relaciones de trabajo, Laborum

Abstract

Union security agreements are a traditional topic in the Law of the United States. In contrast to the situation in Europe the existence of light union security agreements is relatively frequent there. It is so registered by the case law of the United States Supreme Court. However, the recent rising of hard agreements of such kind, similar to the old «yellow dog contract» which employers forced workers to stipulate in the first two decades of the last 20th century, is novel. This new kind of union security agreements has been controversially adjudged by the United States Supreme Court in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018), regarding the arbitration contracts that large American private corporations force their nonunionized workers (or more frankly speaking, not covered by collective bargaining agreements) to stipulate, in order to bar that they can file suits exercising joinder actions or collective or class actions. These are agreements pretending to give an equal treatment to customers and workers of such large corporations. In the instant case, the reason put forward by the iconic Justice Ruth B. Ginsburg are convincing, holding that the agreements at issue violate the workers’ right to carry out concerted activities (a right having not only substantive contents), guaranteed by American federal union legislation (and in the case at issue, by the National Labor Relations Act or, according to its popular name, Wagner Act of 1935).

Bibliographic References

  • Abraham, H.J.: Justices & Presidents. A political history of appointments to the Supreme Court, 2ª ed., New York, Oxford University Press, 1985.
  • Alonso Olea, M.: “Los pactos de seguridad sindical: algunas decisiones recientes”, Revista de Trabajo, núm. 65, 1982.
  • Arufe Varela, A.: “La actualidad del tema de los pactos de seguridad sindical en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos. A propósito del caso Friedrichs V. California Teachers Association (2016)”, Anuario Coruñés de Derecho Comparado del Trabajo, volumen VIII, 2016.
  • Arufe Varela, A.: “Las dos impugnaciones de la constitucionalidad, en 2021, de la legislación californiana positivizando la Iniciativa Legislativa Popular núm. 22 de 2020, sobre reclasificación como trabajadores autónomos de los transportistas al servicio de plataformas digitales”, Anuario Coruñés de Derecho Comparado del Trabajo, volumen 13, 2021.
  • Arufe Varela, A.: El personal laboral de la Oficina Internacional del Trabajo de la OIT, Granada, Comares, 2021).
  • Barret, A.C.: “Precedent and jurisprudential disagreement”, Texas Law Review, núm. 91, 2013.
  • Bernhardt, A., Milkman, R., y Theodore, N.: “Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers: Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America’s Cities”, 2009, accesible en https://www.nelp.org/publication/broken-laws-unprotected-workers-violations-of-employment-and-labor-laws-in-americas-cities/.
  • Bork, R.: The Tempting of America, New York, Macmillan, 1990.
  • Cohen, J.H. y Dayton, K.: “The New Federal Arbitration Law”, Virginia Law Review, vol. XII, núm. 4, 1926.
  • Colvin, A.: “The Growing Use of Mandatory Arbitration, Economic Policy Institute”, 2017, accesible en: https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/135056.pdf.
  • Couceiro Naveira, B.: Las relaciones laborales de los trabajadores del sector bancario en los Estados Unidos. Un estudio comparado con el Derecho español, Madrid, Francis Lefebvre, 2021.
  • Fernandez, M.K.: “Epic Systems Corp. V. Lewis: American employees suffer an epic loss in the ongoing arbitration conflict”, Loyola Law Review, núm. 65, 2019.
  • Fields, C.: Class Action Survey: Best Practices in Reducing Cost and Managing Risk in Class Action Litigation, 2017, accesible en: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/urls_cited/ot2017/16-285/16-285-2.pdf.
  • Finkin, M.W.: “The Meaning and Contemporary Vitality of the Norris-LaGuardia Act”, Nebraska Law Review, núm. 93, 2014.
  • Frankfurter, F. y Greene, N.: “Legislation Affecting Labor Injunctions”, Yale Law Journal, núm. 38, 1929.
  • Gibson, L.S.: Young Thurgood. The making of a Supreme Court Justice, Prometheus Books, 2012.
  • Gilles, M.: “Opting Out of Liability: The Forthcoming, Near-Total Demise of the Modern Class Action”, Michigan Law Review, núm. 104, 2005.
  • Ginsburg, R.B.: My own words, New York, Simon & Schuster, 2016.
  • Glover, J.M.: “The Structural Role of Private Enforcement Mechanisms in Public Law”, William & Mary Law Review, núm. 53, 2012.
  • Gould IV, W.B.: “Dynamex is dynamite, but Epic Systems is its foil – Chamber of Commerce: the sleeper in the trilogy”, Missouri Law Review, núm. 83, 2018.
  • Greenya, J.: Gorsuch. The Judge who speaks for himself, Nueva York, Threshold editions, 2018.
  • Higgins, J.E.: The Developing Labor Law, 6ª ed., Bloomberg BNA (New York, 2012).
  • Jacobs, S.: “Arbitration and Title VII pattern-or-practice claims after Epic Systems”, University of Chicago Law Review, núm. 88, 2021.
  • Lareau, N.P.: Labor and Employment Law, vol. 9, Nueva York, LexisNexis, 2017.
  • Lord, R.A.: Williston on Contracts, vol. 5, 4ª ed., Nueva York, Thomson Reuters, 2009.
  • Lurie, J.: The Chase court. Justices, rulings, and legacy, ABC-CLIO (Santa Barbara-California, 2004).
  • Martínez Girón, J. y Arufe Varela, A.: “La (in)aplicación de la Carta Social Europea al personal laboral al servicio del Consejo de Europa. Un estudio normativo y jurisprudencial”, en Revista General de Derecho del Trabajo y de la Seguridad Social, núm. 51, 2022.
  • Martínez Girón, J. y Arufe Varela, A.: “El «amicus curiae» en el contencioso judicial norteamericano de seguridad social”, en Revista de Derecho de la Seguridad Social, núm. 2, 2015.
  • Martínez Girón, J. y Arufe Varela, A.: Fundamentos de Derecho comparado del Trabajo y de la Seguridad Social, 3ª ed., Barcelona, Atelier, 2023.
  • Martínez Girón, J.: “El incumplimiento del convenio colectivo en la jurisprudencia federal norteamericana”, en Revista Española de Derecho del Trabajo, núm. 16, 1983.
  • Martínez Girón, J.: “La exclusión de las sociedades de capital patrimoniales del sistema de la Seguridad Social. Una evidencia corregible de capitalismo insolidario”, Revista de Derecho Social, núm. 91, 2020.
  • Martínez Girón, J.: “La sorprendente reclasificación en California como trabajadores autónomos de los transportistas al servicio de plataformas digitales. La iniciativa popular núm. 22 de 2020”, Anuario Coruñés de Derecho Comparado del Trabajo, volumen 12, 2020.
  • Martínez Girón, J.: Quince grandes casos de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos sobre Derecho individual del Trabajo. Un estudio desde la perspectiva del Derecho español, A Coruña, Netbiblo, 2012.
  • Mcwilliams, K.: “Game on: the epic battle between the FAA and the NLRA in professional sports after Epic Systems Corp. V. Lewis”, Marquette Sports Law Review, núm. 31, 2021.
  • Meixell, B. y Eisenbrey, R.: “An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions of Dollars a Year”, Economic Policy Institute, 2014, accesible en: https://www.epi.org/files/2014/wage-theft.pdf.
  • Miller, C.E.: “Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis: individual arbitration and the future of Title VII disparate impact and pattern-or-practice class actions”, University of Cincinnati Law Review, núm. 87, 2019.
  • Millis, H.A. y Brown, E.C.: From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley: A Study of National Labor Policy and Labor Relations, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1950.
  • O’Malley, G.: “Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis: singled out by corporations and a textualist Supreme Court, American workers are left to fend for themselves”, Maryland Law Review, núm. 78, 2019.
  • Razzolini, O.: Azione sindacale e tutela giurisdizionale. Studio preliminare a partire da un’analisi comparata, Milán, FrancoAngeli, 2018.
  • Resnik, J.: “Diffusing Disputes: The Public in the Private of Arbitration, the Private in Courts, and the Erasure of Rights”, Yale Law Journal, núm. 124, 2015.
  • Ruan, N.: “What’s Left To Remedy Wage Theft? How Arbitration Mandates That Bar Class Actions Impact Low-Wage Workers”, Michigan State Law Review, núm. 4, 2012.
  • Seidman, J.I.: The Yellow Dog Contract, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1932.
  • Sternlight, J.R.: “Disarming Employees: How American Employers Are Using Mandatory Arbitration To Deprive Workers of Legal Protections”, Brooklyn Law Review, núm. 80, 2015.
  • Sternlight, J.R.: “Panacea or Corporate Tool?: Debunking the Supreme Court’s Preference for Binding Arbitration», Washington University Law Review, núm. 74, 1996.
  • Stevens, J.P.: Five chiefs. A Supreme Court memoir, Little, New York, Brown and Company, 2011.
  • Strum, P.: On account of sex. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the making of gender equality law, Lawrence-Kansas, University Press of Kansas, 2022.
  • Turner, R.: “The FAA, the NLRA, and Epic Systems’ Epic Fail”, Texas Law Review Online, núm. 98, 2019.
  • Vizcaíno Ramos, I.: El contrato de trabajo internacional del personal al servicio de la ONU, Granada, Comares, 2022.
  • Wright, C.A., Miller, A. y Kane, M.K.: Federal Practice and Procedure, 3ª ed., St. Paul-Minnesota, West Publishing Co., 2001.
  • Yeazell, S.C.: From Medieval Group Litigation to the Modern Class Action, New Haven-Connecticut, Yale University Press, 1987.
Data source: Dialnet