BUSINESS TEL:   281.593.1690

BUSINESS FAX:  832.218.1996

Breaking News

Today’s Labor Updates, June 8, 2017

Arbitration awards in France.

Dechert LLPEduardo Silva RomeroNicolas PralicaAudrey Caminades and Xavier Nyssen.

France, Global May 9 2017.

Use the Lexology Navigator tool to compare the answers in this article with those from 20+ other jurisdictions.

The award

Requirements

What legal requirements are there for recognition of an award? Must reasons be given for the award? Does the award need to be reviewed by any other body?

Arbitral awards are recognised and enforced in France when applicants can prove their existence and their recognition and enforcement does not violate international public policy (Article 1514 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

Under Article 1515, the applicant must provide the original award and the arbitration agreement or authenticated copies of these documents (with French translations where applicable).

The president of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris has jurisdiction over the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards.

Exequatur of awards is granted in ex parte proceedings where representation by a French attorney is mandatory (Article 813 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

Timeframe for delivery

Are there any time limits on delivery of the award?

Parties may agree a timeframe for the tribunal to decide the dispute.

No express rule governs this issue in international arbitration.

Remedies

Does the law impose limits on the available remedies? Are some remedies not enforceable by the court?

All remedies are available provided that they are not contrary to French international public order.

In 2009 the Court of Cassation put an end to the debate surrounding the enforcement of arbitral anti-suit injunctions, which it held to be enforceable in France (Cass 1st Civ, October 14 2009).

The enforcement of awards of punitive damages is debated. In French law, damages can only be compensatory and therefore should not exceed the amount of the loss sustained by the injured party. However, punitive damages are not per se contrary to French international public order, provided that the amount of those damages is not “disproportionate in light of the loss sustained and the contractual breach” (Cass 1st Civ, December 1 2010).

What interim measures are available? Will local courts issue interim measures pending constitution of the tribunal?

Pending constitution of the tribunal, local courts may order instruction measures (ie, measures aimed at obtaining evidence or preventing the disappearance or destruction of evidence), as well as provisional and conservatory measures (Articles 1449 and 1506(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure).

Once the tribunal has been constituted, the tribunal may issue any conservatory or provisional measures that it deems appropriate and may attach penalties to such orders (Article 1468). However, pursuant to the same article, national courts retain exclusive jurisdiction to order conservatory attachments and judicial securities. Similarly, only local courts can order third parties to produce documents in relation to the arbitration proceedings (Article 1467).

Interest

Can interest be awarded?

It is commonly accepted that tribunals can award interest and that they enjoy a broad discretion to do so. In most cases, the applicable law or the terms of the contract provide little guidance on this.

At what rate?

There is no express rule on this issue. However, French courts consider that, according to Article 1153-1 of the Civil Code, the amount of compensation awarded accrues interest at the statutory rate from the date of the award, even if the award is silent on this point (Cass 1st Civ, June 30 2004).

Finality

Is the award final and binding?

Awards are binding as soon as they are rendered (Article 1484 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

In international arbitration, awards can be challenged only in annulment proceedings (Article 1518) and are per se provisionally enforceable (Article 1526).

Notwithstanding this, if the award is provisionally enforceable and enforcement may lead to excessive consequences, national courts may stay or set conditions for enforcement of the award (Articles 1497 and 1526).

What if there are any mistakes?

After the award is rendered, the parties can apply to the tribunal to interpret the award, rectify clerical mistakes or make an additional award where it failed to rule on a claim. The tribunal must do so after hearing the parties or giving them the opportunity to be heard. If the tribunal cannot be reconvened and if the parties cannot agree on the constitution of a new tribunal, the national courts will have jurisdiction to decide the aforementioned requests (Articles 1485 and 1506(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure).

Can the parties exclude by agreement any right of appeal or other recourse that the law of your jurisdiction may provide?

The parties are entitled to waive their right to bring an action to set aside the award. However, the enforcement of the award can always be challenged (Article 1522 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

Appeal

What is the procedure for challenging awards?

Awards rendered in France may be challenged by way of either an action to set aside the award (Article 1518 of the Code of Civil Procedure) or an appeal against the order granting enforcement within one month following service of the order or award (Article 1523). Since the 2011 reform, Article 1522 of the code provides that parties can waive their right to bring an action to set aside the award. Challenges must be brought before the appeal court of the place where the award was made (Article 1519 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

On what grounds can parties appeal an award?

Article 1520 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides only the following limited grounds for setting aside awards:

  • The tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction.
  • The tribunal was not properly constituted.
  • The tribunal ruled without complying with its mandate.
  • The principles of due process and fair trial were violated.
  • The award is contrary to public policy.

Enforcement

What steps can be taken to enforce the award if there is a failure to comply?

If the losing party does not comply with the award voluntarily, the winning party may commence enforcement proceedings. Under French law, the winning party may seek assistance from bailiffs to locate the losing party’s assets and conduct the necessary operations for the enforcement of the award.

Can awards be enforced in local courts?

The parties must seek exequatur of the award before it can be enforced in local courts.

How enforceable is the award internationally?

This depends on the rules of the foreign state in which enforcement of the award is sought, together with applicable treaties.

To what extent might a state or state entity successfully raise a defence of state or sovereign immunity at the enforcement stage?

In principle, assets belonging to sovereign states are immune from execution in France unless they are:

  • assets used by the state for purely commercial purposes; or
  • assets over which the state has specifically waived its immunity.

In 2016 Articles L.111-1-1, L.111-1-2 and L.111-1-3 of the Code of Civil Execution Procedures clarified the conditions under which enforcement proceedings can target state assets.

Are there any other bases on which an award may be challenged, and if so, by what?

Parties may apply to the tribunal for revision of the award in circumstances where:

  • the winning party obtained a favourable decision by fraud;
  • a party withheld decisive evidence;
  • the tribunal ruled on the basis of evidence that was judicially found to be fabricated or forged after the award was rendered; or
  • the tribunal ruled on the basis of statements and testimonies that were judicially found to false after the award was rendered.

How enforceable are foreign arbitral awards in your jurisdiction?

In general, French courts are liberal regarding the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

Will an award that has been set aside by the courts in the seat of arbitration be enforced in your jurisdiction?

French courts can recognise and enforce an arbitral award regardless of the fact that the award was set aside at the seat of arbitration (eg, Cass 1st Civ, June 10 1997, Hilmarton; Cass 1st Civ, June 29 2007, Putrabali).

Click here to view the full article.

Labor Department rescinds Obama-era guidance on joint-employers

By Lydia Wheeler – 06/07/17 11:55 AM EDT

Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta on Wednesday rescinded Obama-era guidance that defines a “joint-employer.”

The informal guidance was similar to a 2015 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling now being challenged in court, but impacted different laws.

NLRB considers a company jointly liable for its contractors’ compliance with the National Labor Relations Act, which gives employees the right to unionize, if they have “indirect” control over the terms and conditions of employment or have the “reserved authority to do so.”

The Obama administration considered a company jointly liable for complying with the Fair Labor Standards Act — the primary federal law governing minimum wages and overtime pay — and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act when two or more employers jointly employed an employee. The employee’s hours worked for all of the joint employers during the workweek were to be aggregated and considered as one employment, including for the purposes of calculating overtime pay.

Acosta’s decision to rescind that guidance was welcomed by business groups, who have long argued that the NLRB and the Obama administration created a confusing patchwork of rules and regulations that made it impossible for companies to know whether they should be following the labor board’s decision or the administration’s interpretation.

“There’s nothing more basic in trying to figure out what your approach should be to compliance with labor laws than figuring out who the employer and employee is,” said Michael Lotito, who co-chairs the Workplace Policy Institute at Littler Mendelson PC.

The International Franchise Association (IFA) said the new standards have made it harder for America’s 733,000 franchise owners to grow and create new jobs.

“We are pleased the DOL is taking first steps to undue this costly regulation created by the previous administration,” Matt Haller, IFA’s vice president of public affairs, said in a statement. “That being said, we urge Congress to now recognize the uncertainty and unreasonable costs the NLRB’s decision has placed on franchise owners and take action to find a true permanent solution.”

The Department of Labor (DOL) also rescinded Obama-era guidance on independent contractors on Wednesday. In that guidance, the agency said it considered most workers to be employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and it was likely to apply a very broad definition when investigating a company’s practices, CNN Money reported at the time.

In a brief release, DOL said the removal of the administration interpretations does not change the legal responsibilities of employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

“The department will continue to fully and fairly enforce all laws within its jurisdiction,” the agency said.

The Labor Department has deleted the Obama-era guidance from it’s website. The new department announcement was a paragraph long and does not detail the previous guidance.

Supporters of the new joint-employer standards called the administration’s decision disappointing.

In a statement, Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, said the guidance was issued to provide concrete compliance assistance to employers and workers alike about their rights and responsibilities under federal minimum wage law.

“But rescinding these documents doesn’t change the court decisions that they cite, nor anyone’s rights or responsibilities under the law,” she said.

“All it does is show the Trump Administration’s willingness to take symbolic steps to attack workers – here, at the expense of additional clarity for all parties.”

—This report was updated at 2:22 p.m.

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of May 22 – 26, 2017

The Summary of NLRB Decisions is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for the opinions of the NLRB.  Inquiries should be directed to the Office of the Executive Secretary at 202‑273‑1940.

Summarized Board Decisions

Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union 669 (Firetrol Protection Systems Inc. and Cosco Fire Protection, Inc., MX Holdings US, Inc. and CFP Fire Protection, Inc.)  (27-CC-091349; 365 NLRB No. 83)  Denver, CO, May 23, 2017.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Union violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) by filing a grievance and a lawsuit against several neutral employers with the object of enmeshing them in a labor dispute with one of their nonunion corporate affiliates and also violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by filing the grievance and lawsuit with the purpose of forcing the nonunion corporate affiliate to recognize and bargain with the Union as the representative of its employees.

Charge filed by Firetrol Protection Systems, Inc.  Administrative Law Judge Mary Miller Cracraft issued her decision on August 22, 2013.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

***

Food Services of America, Inc., a subsidiary of Services Group of America, Inc.  (28-CA-063052; 365 NLRB No. 85)  Scottsdale, AZ, May 26, 2017.

The Board (Chairman Miscimarra and Member Pearce; Member McFerran, dissenting) granted the General Counsel’s motion to remand the case to the Regional Director for the purpose of having the Regional Director approve the withdrawal of the charge in light of the non-Board settlement agreement reached by the Charging Parties and the Respondent nearly 3 months prior to the Board’s decision on the merits in 2014.  The non-Board settlement agreement resolved not only the unfair labor practice charges, but other claims relating to a lawsuit filed by the Respondent in federal district court.  Citing the Independent Stave Co., 287 NLRB 740 (1987), principle that the Board considers “all of the surrounding circumstances,” the Board majority found that the remand request was appropriate given the “unique circumstances” presented.

In dissent, Member McFerran noted that the General Counsel won this Board case “in important part,” yet now seeks to abandon it based on a private settlement that was reached months prior to the issuance of the Board’s decision.  The settlement itself, according to Member McFerran, fails to provide remedies for all of the violations that the Board found in its decision.  Member McFerran expressed concern regarding what could be a “possible abuse of the Board’s processes – a course of conduct that required the Board to devote significant resources to deciding a case that apparently was moot, as far as the parties were concerned.”  Unless the General Counsel or Respondent could provide a persuasive explanation on how the settlement effectuates the policies of the Act, Member McFerran would deny the motion to remand.

Charge filed by an individual.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

Alaska Communications Systems Holding, Inc.  (19-UC-183065)  Anchorage, AK, May 24, 2017.  The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order as it raised no issues warranting review.  The Regional Director had found insufficient evidence to support accreting historically excluded employees into a preexisting unit.  In denying review, the Board noted that, if the Petitioner was also seeking a self-determination election for some employees it currently represents pursuant to voluntary recognition, then such an election would not be warranted as it does not raise a question concerning representation.  Petitioner – International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1547, AFL-CIO.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

C Cases

Cott Beverages Inc.  (16-CA-181144)  San Antonio, TX, May 24, 2017.  The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint allegations regarding the Respondent’s policy prohibiting employees from having personal cell phones on the manufacturing floor or at employee work stations.  The Board found that the Respondent failed to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact warranting a hearing and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Chairman Miscimarra agreed with the denial of the Respondent’s motion because here, consistent with his concurring position in L’Hoist North America of Tennessee, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 110 (2015), the General Counsel explained, in reasonably concrete terms, why, based on material facts that are genuinely in dispute, a hearing is required.  Charge filed by an individual.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

XPO Logistics Freight, Inc.  (12-CA-179859)  Hialeah, FL, May 25, 2017.  The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, finding that the Respondent had not demonstrated that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and failed to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact warranting a hearing and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  The Board noted that the Respondent’s alternative request for a bill of particulars is not before the Board, as Deputy Chief Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan ordered the General Counsel to clarify certain aspects of the complaint, and the Board has not received a request for special permission to appeal the judge’s order.  Chairman Miscimarra agreed with the denial of the Respondent’s motion because here, consistent with his concurring position in L’Hoist North America of Tennessee, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 110 (2015), the General Counsel explained, in reasonably concrete terms, why, based on material facts that are genuinely in dispute, a hearing is required.  Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 769.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

Alternative Entertainment, Inc., Board Case No. 07-CA-144404 (reported at 363 NLRB No. 131) (6th Cir. decided May 26, 2017)

In a published opinion, the Court, with one judge dissenting, enforced in full the Board’s order issued against this provider of satellite-television installation and services to residential customers in Michigan and Wisconsin.  The Court upheld the Board’s finding that the Employer, by requiring employees to sign an agreement to resolve all employment-related disputes through individual arbitration, violated Section 8(a)(1), because such an agreement restrained employees from exercising their Section 7 right to concertedly enforce employment laws.  In doing so, the Court joined the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in holding such arbitration agreements unlawful under the Act, and declined to join the Fifth, Eighth, and Second Circuits in upholding such agreements.  The Supreme Court has granted the Board’s petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Fifth Circuit’s Murphy Oil decision, along with several private-party cases that turn on the Board’s Murphy Oil rule.

The Sixth Circuit held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s additional findings that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by prohibiting an employee from discussing compensation with other employees and firing him for doing so.  As to the uncontested finding that the Employer unlawfully maintained an overly broad confidentiality rule, the Court summarily enforced.

The Court’s opinion is here (link is external).

Hawaiian Dredging Construction Company, Inc., Board Case No. 37-CA-008316 (reported at 362 NLRB No. 10) (D.C. Cir. decided May 26, 2017)

In a published opinion, the Court granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the Board.  In its decision and order issued against this general contractor that employs 375 craft employees, the Board (then-Chairman Pearce and Member Hirozawa; then-Member Miscimarra, dissenting) found, contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging 13 employees based on their union affiliation.  The Court held that the Board had not adequately taken into account certain record evidence credited by the judge, and remanded the case to the Board for further consideration.

The Employer is a member of the Association of Boilermakers Employers of Hawaii and has performed its craft work pursuant to Section 8(f) pre-hire collective-bargaining agreements.  For over 20 years, the Employer has held such agreements with the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, and Helpers, Local 627.  Under the terms of the most recent agreement, the Union provided the Employer with welders, riggers, equipment setters, pipefitters, and PVC workers.  After their most recent agreement expired in October 2010, negotiations for a next agreement ensued and the parties agreed to extend the terms of the expired agreement.  After negotiations broke down, the Employer terminated its relationship with the Union in February 2011, discharged the 13 employees represented by the Union, and temporarily discontinued the welding operations where they were working.  Within a week, the Employer entered into a Section 8(f) agreement with another union, Local 675 of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union, made clear that the 13 employees could return to work once they became Pipefitter members, as required by the agreement, and assisted them by providing equipment needed to pass the requisite tests.  In total, 8 of the 13 employees returned to work.

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the allegation that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging the 13 employees because they were union members.   The judge distinguished this Section 8(f) construction industry context from the usual circumstances in which the “inherently destructive” theory of NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26 (1967), has been applied, such as strikes, lockouts, and other actions where the parties have some sort of continuing obligation to each other.  Based on record evidence, the judge found that the Employer acted consistently with its longstanding practice of only employing craft workers who were affiliated with a union and were operating under a collective bargaining agreement, regardless of any particular union affiliation.  The judge concluded that the employees were laid off because they were no longer working under a contract, not because they were members of the Boilermakers, and that the Employer’s actions taken consistently with its longstanding practice amounted to a legitimate interest that also would satisfy its defensive burden under Wright Line.

The Board majority reversed, finding that the discharges were unlawful under both Wright Line and Great Dane.  In finding animus in support of its Wright Line analysis, the Board relied on the Employer’s summary discharge of all Boilermakers-represented employees, and only those employees, explaining that, although an employer may terminate its Section 8(f) agreement with a union, it may not discriminatorily discharge its employees because of their affiliation with that union.  And under Great Dane, the Board found that the discharges were “inherently destructive” of represented employees’ Section 7 rights because they would discourage employees from exercising their right to join a labor organization.

On review, the Court agreed in large part with the reasoning of the Administrative Law Judge and held, among other things, that the Board had not adequately considered the credited evidence of the Employer’s 20-year practice of only employing workers covered by a Section 8(f) agreement.  Accordingly, the Court held that in light of that credited evidence relevant to the Employer’s motive, the Board had not adequately explained its Wright Line conclusion.  Regarding Great Dane, the Court stated that the Board’s finding appeared to be based principally on the notion that the employees “were separated because of their union membership, rather than — as the ALJ found — because of the expiration of their contract,” which the Court noted was a finding undermined by the credited evidence the Board has not taken into account.

The Court’s opinion is here (link is external).

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Gross Electric, Inc.  (03-CA-187577; JD-37-17)  Queensbury, NY.  Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron issued his decision on May 22, 2017.  Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, Local 236.

Kelly Services, Inc.  (04-CA-171036; JD-36-17)  East Brunswick, NJ.  Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi issued his decision on May 23, 2017.  Charge filed by an individual.

Voices for International Business and Education, Inc. d/b/a International High School of New Orleans  (15-CA-182632 and 15-CA-187456; JD-39-17)  New Orleans, LA.  Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on May 24, 2017.  Charges filed by United Teachers of New Orleans Local 527, LFT, AFT.

Liberty Bakery Kitchen, Inc.  (01-CA-181081 and 01-CA-191349; JD-38-17)  Brockton, MA.  Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth M. Tafe issued her decision on May 25, 2017.  Charges filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 653.

International Longshore and Warehouse Union (Pacific Maritime Association)  (19-CB-169296; JD(SF)-22-17)  Seattle, WA.  Administrative Law Judge Ariel L. Sotolongo issued his decision on May 25, 2017.  Charge filed by an individual.

Trinity Health – Michigan d/b/a St. Joseph Mercy Oakland Hospital  (07-CA-161375; JD-41-17)  Pontiac, MI.  Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble issued her decision on May 25, 2017.  Charge filed by Council 25, Michigan American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 501 (GNLV Corp. d/b/a Golden Nugget Las Vegas)  (28-CB-182296; JD(SF)-23-17)  Las Vegas, NV.  Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone issued her decision on May 25, 2017.  Charge filed by GNLV Corp. d/b/a Golden Nugget Las Vegas.

Verizon Wireless  (02-CA-157403, et al.; JD-40-17)  Philadelphia, PA.  Administrative Law Judge Donna N. Dawson issued her decision on May 25, 2017.  Charges filed by Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO.

Jam Productions, Ltd. and Event Productions, Inc., a single employer  (13-CA-177838; JD-42-17)  Chicago, IL.  Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on May 26, 2017.  Charge filed by Theatrical Stage Employees Union Local No. 2, IATSE.

Comments are closed.