A federal court in Texas held that National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) claims are arbitrable where there is no evidence of coercive tactics or other unfair practices used to interfere with an employee's right to a judicial forum under the Act.

In Webster v. Guillermo Perales, No. 3:07-CV-00919-M, 2008 WL 282305 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2008), Lisa Webster, Kendall Morris, and April Ellis (collectively, employees) sued Golden Restaurants, Inc. (Golden), their former employer, for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Golden moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement signed by each of the employees.

The Court rejected the employees' argument that the NLRA barred enforcement of the arbitration agreement under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).

First, the employees did not meet their burden of proof that the NLRA evidenced any intent on behalf of Congress to prohibit mandatory arbitration of these claims. Nor did the employees offer proof that Section 7 prohibits waiver of an employee's right to a judicial forum in its language guaranteeing the right "to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of…mutual aid or protection." Notably, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously decided that Section 7 did not forbid such a waiver. See Carter v. Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc., 362 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2004).

Second, the employees did not establish any unfair practices that interfered with the rights guaranteed under Section 7 that would make Section 8 of the NLRA applicable here. See also National Licorice Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 84 L.Ed 799 (1940). In fact, the employees "expressly acknowledged that their agreement to arbitrate was made voluntarily and without duress, pressure, or coercion."

Accordingly, the NRLA did not forbid arbitration of the employees' claims.