Given the agreement included a prominent stand-alone paragraph addressing employees’ ability to pursue administrative remedies, a reasonable employee could not interpret the policy to restrict their right of access to the Board.

In a case on remand from the Ninth Circuit, the NLRB determined that an arbitration policy instituted by Ralphs Grocery did not unlawfully interfere with employees’ statutory right of access to the Board and its processes. The Board found that a savings provision in the agreement was framed in a way that objectively reasonable employees would understand that the inclusion of such language in a legal document made it clear they had the right to file charges with the Board. As to the legality of a confidentiality provision, the Board held that it violated Section 8(a)(1), but only insofar as it required employees to maintain the existence of any arbitration proceeding in the strictest confidence. Member Prouty dissented in part (Ralphs Grocery Co., 375 N.L.R.B. No. 25 (Aug. 10, 2026)).

In 2009, a security guard for Ralphs Grocery filed a class action and PAGA lawsuit in California state court against the employer, alleging it failed to pay wages for missed lunch and rest breaks. At all relevant times, the parties were subject to a mandatory mediation and binding arbitration policy.

Savings clause. Paragraph six of the agreement contained a savings clause stating, “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Arbitration Policy, all Employees retain...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiigJBVV95cUxPbzlVRXJlQUp3eHhjTWNZTVhs...