Can Arbitration Agreements be in the Employee Handbook?<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Arbitration agreements specifically in California have been hotly debated. The main issue in such debates highlights the matter of whether a particular arbitration agreement is actually enforceable and if yes, whether they can be applied to a specific line of action as well.<\/p>\n

Surprisingly enough, recent court cases have given employers a clear picture that whether it’s in the handbook or not, they are rarely enforceable.
\nThe definition of an arbitration agreement says that it is an agreement in which the employee and the employer agree well ahead of time how, when and where a future argument or encounter between them will be handled and resolved if any of the dispute evolved. In these agreements, employees are usually provided with their rights to put up on a trial with a judge or jury, and in addition it also provides room for the geographical location for the settlement of the dispute.<\/p>\n

Moreover, when highlighting the details of Sparks v. Vista Del Mar Child & Family Services, a policy was duly included in the employee handbook on account of the matters related to the arbitration and employee and employer disputes, and with that the employee was bound to sign an acknowledgement form which states that he has received, understands and agrees to the rules and regulations contained in the employee handbook. But consequently, the acknowledgement form had not detailed out the policy of arbitration clearly and moreover, it did not consist of an independent form for the arbitration agreement in particular.<\/p>\n

Under this case, a claim was filed by the employee against the employer on the sufficient grounds and the employer on the other hand, backed himself on the facts by arguing that the employee has duly signed the acknowledgement form in favor of arbitration together with acceptance of the employee handbook. The court argued that the employee had not agreed to the arbitration policy of the employer just by signing the acknowledgement form. The justification of court behind this decision was that the arbitration policy was included in employee handbook and at the same time it also states that the policy of arbitration is not intended to be an enforceable agreement on employees part.\u00a0 In addition, the acknowledgement provided by the employee in such form does not convey reasonable information regarding the acceptance of principles of arbitration by the employee. Moreover, according to the policies of the handbook, the employer could amend the rules and regulations contained therein at his will and thus the court regarded that this action of amendment made any agreement regarding the arbitration rather fictitious. Further, the court mentioned that even if there was a binding contract for arbitration, it would not be enforceable due to\u00a0lack of consciousness on part of the employee as the policy and regulation of arbitration did not substantially offer for sufficient findings and incorporated AAA arbitration rules that were not contained or informed to the employees reasonably.<\/p>\n

Thus, the facts mentioned in the case of the Sparks, conveys the understanding that for an arbitration to be a binding one, it should be an unconditional contract signed by the employees. In addition, the provisions and regulations of particular employment arbitration should be made so vivid and prominent that it provides employees with adequate and real knowledge of the actual provisions of such arbitration agreements without any reservations.
\nIn case of any queries regarding your employment, please contact a California labor law attorney\u00a0who can assist you to understand your privileges and rights in true essence. If you have any questions about this article or our blog, feel free to call us at:
\nSan Francisco \u2013 (415) 200-0012 or (415) 230-2755<\/p>\n

Photo Credit: Shutterstock\/PressMaster<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Can Arbitration Agreements be in the Employee Handbook? Arbitration agreements specifically in California have been hotly debated. The main issue […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[829],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2413","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-employee-handbook"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n