Arbitration

Arbitration is the mould of resolving an argument verbotenside the formal approach system. An arbitrator listens to both lead offies and determines an cartel that is circusest to both parties. As a part of the hiring process, m all employers ar mandating voluntary arbitrament agreements betwixt the employee and the company as part of the application process for hiring.These vitrines of arbitration agreements have caused concern from the tally job Opportunity explosive charge for employee protection. One famous case arose between the rival Employment Opportunity Commission and Waffle mansion house. The rulings from the case by both the Circuit Courts and the Supreme Courts have changed the structure and proceedings for the required arbitration agreements between employees and employers.When an employee of Waffle sept was fired after having a seizure during work hours, the couple Employment Opportunity Commission charged ratified action against Waffle House.Because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was non part of the compulsory 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 pursuing an freelancer law befit on the employees behalf and seeking employeespecific judicial relief. (Labor and Employee Relations, 2002) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint that Waffle House was in violation of the Ameri ceases with Disabilities Act and sought punitive damages and back off pay for the employee.At first glance, one might come to the remnant 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 commission had not narrowed an agreem ent with the company, it is pictorial to assume that companies would find such agreements to be futile and worthless. Now 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 keep employee suits out of the court system to save both the employee and the company intelligent fees. on a lower floor the Supreme Court rulings it would appear that employers are no massiveer 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 commission receives annually. The chances of a case going to litigation is significantly low as long as the employer has watchd the wording of the mandatory arbitra tion agreements and has maintained safe and fair working practices.Even though the Supreme Court left extend 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 still viewed as a greet 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 contain accordingly. (Labor and Employee Relations, 2002)Employers who practice sound bank line 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 existence of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or that they can file outdoors of the companys chosen arbitrator for law suits against the company. Even though technically employees have two methods to file against an employer, the reality is that close to employees are ignorant of the resources at their disposal.The Supreme Courts decision to book 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 remains the most cost effective method to settle employee disputes by avoiding high legal fees for both the company and the employee. The Supreme Courts decision resulted in companies practicing more equitable work procedures.In addition, the decision forced 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 of the commissions existence the use of mandatory arbitration agreements to settle employee disputes is still cost effective and on the rise for companies.