A recent wage and hours class action has raised the issue of whether an arbitration provision in an employee handbook, plus acknowledgement forms that the class representative signed, constitutes a legally binding agreement to arbitrate employer-employee disputes.
In Mendoza v. Trans Valley Transport et al., the respondent, a former employee, brought a class action complaint against the appellants — Gilroy, CA-based Trans Valley Transport and FTU Labor Contractors, Inc. — on behalf of truck drivers who worked for those two employers. The alleged causes of action pertained to provisions of the Lab. Code and of the Bus. & Prof. Code.
The employers filed two motions seeking to compel arbitration and to stay the litigation. The trial court, denying both motions, ruled that the parties didn’t enter into a binding agreement to arbitrate.
The trial court didn’t address the following arguments of the employers: first, the agreement was not unconscionable; and second, the arbitrator, not a court, was entitled to determine the question of whether the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate. The employers based the second contention on a delegation clause in the arbitration policy in FTU’s employee handbook.
The employers appealed. The California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s denial of the employers’ motion to compel arbitration. According to the appellate court, the employers forfeited their delegation clause argument by...
GB News presenter Alex Armstrong and right-wing social media commentator Bernadette Spofforth have apologised and paid substantial damages to Green Party deputy leader Mothin Ali after falsely sug...