The Supreme Court`s decisions on arbitration, is all the more reason for workers to organize and unionize. The rights of organized workers are protected and collective and collective actions can and do. In addition, negotiated collective agreements may preserve a worker`s right to continue legal action, alone or collectively, for violation of legal rights. An underpaid worker has limited rights, but organized workers can work together. This is why workers should resort to collective action through union representation to negotiate for better pay, to fight for fair and fair conditions and to demand the responsibility of employers. In return, unions should use their resources to fund legal strategies to hold employers to account if they break the law. Cordua Restaurants clarifies the limits of legitimate employer behaviour, since these are declarations of waiver of collective action by confirming that employers can implement such exemptions in response to the protected activity under Section 7 and the condition of employment when signing such agreements by workers. Conversely, the decision specifies that an employer is not allowed to terminate workers for participating in a group action or to sanction them in any other way. However, employers should keep in mind that mandatory arbitration agreements are not unlimited. In two recent decisions, the Board of Directors struck down mandatory arbitration agreements that could reasonably be interpreted by employees as a restriction on their right to file NLRB royalties. In Prime Healthcare, 368 NLRB No.
10 (June 18, 2019), the Commission clarified that “the Supreme Court`s decision in the Disrupted Epic System” The Board of Directors prohibits employers from submitting advisory fees, “including by restrictions contained in arbitration agreements.” As recently as last week, the Chamber upheld an administrative judge`s decision to issue an arbitration agreement on the same ground, with the agreement requiring the arbitration procedure “of all disputes” arising from the “employment relationship.” Bud`s Woodfire Oven LLC d/b/a Ava`s Pizzeria, 368 NLRB No. 45 (August 16, 2019). The sophisticated language that the agreement “does not exclude the filing of taxes or participation in an administrative investigation of a tax with an appropriate government authority” did not validly abrogate the agreement`s proposal to collect the futility of the NLRB royalty submission. In light of these two recent participations, employers should carefully review arbitration agreements to ensure that they do not explicitly or implicitly deter workers from engaging in unfair labour practices. Moreover, this latter decision is an important reminder that the disclaimer language cannot overcome the effects of an employment policy, that it disproportionately limits the rights of the worker section 7. Political discussions on class actions and individual arbitrations are “constitutional issues that are not left to the courts, but to policy makers in the political arenas.”  The majority concluded by emphasizing the role of Congress in economic policy. For example, the Court referred to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau`s adoption of a rule prohibiting the application of class action waiver provisions in consumer-financial service provider arbitration agreements, “only to see how Congress responds by immediately repealing this rule.”  Just as the executive may not try to sneak beyond Congress, “his Court is not free to replace its preferred economic policy with that chosen by the representatives of the people.”  No, certain types of rights should not be subject to arbitration.