A 1992 survey of dispute resolution procedures showed that only 2.1% of employers surveyed used mandatory arbitration37. 38 More recently, 7.6% of them were subjected to mandatory arbitration procedures for their employees.38 reported on a 2003 survey of 291 employers in the telecommunications sector, 14.1% of them had introduced binding arbitration procedures.39 However, employers who agreed to be the most important organisations, 22.7% of non-syndist workers in the organisations surveyed were covered by mandatory arbitrations. In this survey, the focus was on procedures for lower-level employees in the industry, such as employees. B customer service or technicians. These legal systems may be elected (explicitly or implicitly) by the parties. They may also differ. For example, the parties may decide that their material rights and obligations arising from a construction contract are governed by French law, but that any subsequent arbitration proceedings have their headquarters in London, with the arbitrators adopting English legal procedures and their arbitration agreement in accordance with English law. This may be desirable, for example, to seek a “neutral” forum in the country of origin of one of the parties, or if one or both parties have concerns about the independence of national courts. 28. See Yan, above in Note 14 to 552 (with the observation that “[d]er… the unavailability of the class procedure would have a devastating effect on workers trying to justify their rights”). Notes: Percentages indicate the proportion of jobs in each workforce with binding arbitration guidelines. The symbols and symbols indicate that the adoption of a mandatory arbitration procedure is very different from the other categories in the table combined at level 0.10 and 0.05, respectively.
This also applies to the situation of organized jobs where workers are represented by trade unions. Trade union/management arbitration is often the end of the appeal procedure for workers covered by a collective agreement. In addition to extending the scope of the FAA, the Court has limited the standard for reviewing arbitration awards, thereby limiting the ability of parties to challenge an arbitration decision in court. In 2008, the Hall Street Associates Court, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, held that the parties could not accept a court reviewing the decisions of their arbitration tribunals. In this case, the parties to a commercial lease had an arbitration agreement requiring arbitration for all disputes, but also provided that a court would have to act on any arbitration decision that was not supported by the facts or was based on an erroneous legal conclusion. While arbitration must be seen as a creature of the parties` contract, and the parties must be able to create arbitration systems as they wish, the Supreme Court refused to apply the parties` agreement on the scope of the audit. On the contrary, the liberal national policy in favour of arbitration requires a limitation of judicial review on the specific grounds enumerated in the FAA itself.