Arbitration Agreement Unconscionable

The Directive provided that arbitration was the last and exclusive forum for the worker to settle all labour disputes. Each page was limited to two testimonies, 25 requests for documents and 25 hearings to identify potential witnesses. The arbitrator was not allowed to find that the employment relationship was not as he pleased. The amount of damage that staff were able to recover was limited. United Healthcare could pick up lawyers. However, in certain circumstances, the worker was prohibited from recovering lawyers. Fees. But the problem is that Texas courts have been slow to realize that choosing a unilateral or biased arbitrator would meet this definition of scruples. The selection of a biased arbitrator effectively changes any term of the contract by ensuring that any obligation or requirement of the contract can be distorted or manipulated in order to privilege the business over the consumer.

In Venture Cotton Co-op v. Freeman, the Texas Supreme Court, deliberately circumvented the problem of scruples, although a cotton co-op`s contract required that arbitration be conducted by and in accordance with the rules of its own industry group, the American Cotton Shippers Association. The majority of the Supreme Court again upheld the principle of jurisdiction, but added a new exception to the general rule that courts should refer arbitrators in matters of jurisdiction. They said courts should not refer court challenges to arbitrators “if there is a real prospect that it will ensure that the challenge is never resolved.” In examining procedural impitoyability, a court focuses on the oppression resulting from unequal bargaining power and on surprising the weaker party by hidden terms or the absence of an informed election. Substantive scruples are about excessively harsh or unjustifiable unilateral results. Finding that there was an inequality of bargaining power in this case, the majority found the following key factors: the difference in refinement between Mr. Heller and Mr. Uber; the absence of information in the contract on the cost of filing an arbitral remedy; and the foreign choice clause which circumvented legal protection in national labour law, from which Mr Heller would otherwise benefit. While the class action claimed violations of Ontario`s labour standards legislation, the potential effects of the Supreme Court`s decision could go far beyond the actual context of the case. In particular, the decision could have consequences for the application of arbitration agreements and also influence the interpretation of model contracts. .

. .