DoD Issues Final Rule on Mandatory Arbitration Restrictions in Defense Contracts

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) will issue a final rule (pdf) implementing section 8116 of the DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which restricts a contractor’s use of mandatory arbitration agreements in certain instances. Specifically, section 8116 bans contractors or subcontractors at any tier that receive funds appropriated by the Act for a contract in excess of $1 million from enforcing mandatory, pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate “any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.” After June 17, 2010, contractors are required to certify compliance by their subcontractors. The Secretary of Defense is permitted to waive the applicability of this prohibition to a particular contract or subcontract in the interest of national security. Additionally, the arbitration limitations do not apply to a contractor’s or subcontractor’s agreement with employees or independent contractors that cannot be enforced in the U.S., nor do they apply to the acquisition of commercial items, including commercially available off-the-shelf items.

The final rule adopts the interim rule issued in May 2010 with certain minor changes. Specifically, the final rule further explains the DoD waiver process and the conditions under which the DoD’s waiver authority will be exercised. The DoD’s waiver determination will “set forth the grounds for the waiver with specificity, state any alternatives considered, and explain why each of the alternatives would not avoid harm to national security interests.” The final rule is effective as of the date of publication in the Federal Register, which is scheduled for December 8, 2010.

Photo credit: Damir Cudic

Policy Group Contends EFCA's Mandatory Arbitration Provision Amounts to Government Takeover of the Private Sector

A report released last week by conservative think tank Manhattan Institute for Policy Research argues that the Employee Free Choice Act’s (EFCA) mandatory arbitration provision equates to a government takeover of the private sector. According to the report, “EFCA seeks in a few short paragraphs to erect a labor regime whose untested provisions and coercive power will add countless business casualties to our already suffering economy.” In particular, the report laments that public debate on EFCA has centered on the card check provisions, and “has thus glossed over the synergistic risks when it is married to a program of compulsory arbitration.”

As summarized in the report’s foreword by James R. Copland, Director, Center for Legal Policy of Manhattan Institute for Policy Research:

The extent to which the EFCA is a radical departure from existing labor law is little understood. Unfortunately, the public discourse has focused on the “card check” provision of the legislation without an adequate grasp of the EFCA’s provision for compulsory arbitration. In essence, the proposed law would place all elements of employment contracts—wages, hours, vacation time, health benefits, promotions, work assignments, termination decisions, even corporate mergers—under the thumb of government appointees in the Department of Labor, for at least the two years specified in the statute.

The EFCA is fundamentally unfair. As Professor Epstein [the report’s author] notes, the EFCA’s title itself is an ironic misnomer: the legislation would effectively eliminate choices that employees are guaranteed under existing labor law—namely, the right to certify a union through secret-ballot elections as well as the right to ratify or reject employment contracts.

The article discusses EFCA from a historical perspective, and includes an examination of the possible constitutional problems with this legislation. Whether such constitutional claims could be raised successfully, however, is not very clear.