Arbitration

Arbitration is the process of resolving an argument after-school(prenominal) the white-tie court system. An arbitrator listens to both parties and determines an arranging that is fairest to both parties. As a part of the hiring process, many a(prenominal) employers are mandating voluntary arbitrement agreements between the employee and the troupe as part of the application process for hiring.These types of arbitrament agreements have caused adjoin from the live Employment hazard focus for employee protection. One famous fiber arose between the Equal Employment Opportunity counseling and weave House. The rulings from the berth by both the Circuit courtyards and the Supreme Courts have changed the structure and minutes for the mandatory arbitration agreements between employees and employers.When an employee of flutter House was fired aft(prenominal) having a seizure during work hours, the Equal Employment Opportunity focussing loadd sub judice action against Waffle House.Because the Equal Employment Opportunity delegating was not part of the mandatory arbitration agreement between Waffle House and the employee the case was taken to the courts In EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., the Supreme Court held that an agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment disputes does not bar the EEOC from act an independent lawsuit on the employees behalf and seeking employeespecific discriminative relief. (Labor and Employee Relations, 2002) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint that Waffle House was in violation of the Ameri quite a littles with Disabilities Act and sought punitive alter and back pay for the employee.At first glance, one might bewilder to the conclusion that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has essentially replaced the arbitration process between employers and employees. If the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can file complaints because a representative of the tutelage had n ot signed an agreement with the company, it is natural to assume that companies would find such agreements to be futile and worthless. instantly employees can file an arbitration claim and an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claim against employers.The main purpose of the mandatory arbitration agreements was to clasp employee suits out of the court system to save both the employee and the company legal fees. Under the Supreme Court rulings it would appear that employers are no longstanding protected and the use of arbitration agreements with employees would potentially increase the possibility of having a suit filed against the company.However, employers know that the number of cases that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission actually takes to the courts is extremely low in comparison to the number of cases the committee receives annually. The chances of a case going to litigation is significantly low as long as the employer has examined the wording of the mandatory arbitration agreements and has maintained inviolable and fair working practices. even off though the Supreme Court odd open the statue of limitations on cases filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the type of damages that could be sought, mandatory arbitration is lighten viewed as a cost effective method to settle employee disputes with companies. If the employee failed to mitigate his or her damages, any recovery by the EEOC would be limited accordingly. (Labor and Employee Relations, 2002)Employers who practice sound recording business procedures are still protected by the mandatory arbitration agreements because an employee is limited on the types of compensation that can be claimed either by the employee or by the commission on the employees behalf. In addition, many employees that sign the mandatory arbitration agreements are completely unaware of the humans of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or that they can file outside of the companys cho sen arbitrator for law suits against the company. Even though technically employees have two methods to file against an employer, the reality is that about employees are ignorant of the resources at their disposal.The Supreme Courts decisiveness to allow the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to represent employees outside of mandatory arbitration has not deterred companies from continuing the practice of these requiring these agreements. Arbitration trunk the most cost effective method to settle employee disputes by avoiding steep legal fees for both the company and the employee. The Supreme Courts ending resulted in companies practicing more equitable work procedures.In addition, the decision agonistic companies to examine existing agreements and modify them to be more equitable to the employer. With the changes in the arbitration agreements, the low percentage of cases taken to court by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the lack of knowledge by employees o f the commissions existence the use of mandatory arbitration agreements to settle employee disputes is still cost effective and on the rise for companies.