REPOZYTORIUM UNIWERSYTETU
W BIAŁYMSTOKU
UwB

Proszę używać tego identyfikatora do cytowań lub wstaw link do tej pozycji: http://hdl.handle.net/11320/11240
Pełny rekord metadanych
Pole DCWartośćJęzyk
dc.contributor.authorSzymanski, Charles F.-
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-08T10:12:17Z-
dc.date.available2021-07-08T10:12:17Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.citationBiałostockie Studia Prawnicze, Vol. 26 nr 2, 2021, s. 11-49pl
dc.identifier.issn1689-7404-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11320/11240-
dc.description.abstractEuropean legal systems have long encompassed the concept of the “general clause”, particularly in contract and labor law. The general clause includes unwritten legal norms such as good faith and public morality, and these principles are duly incorporated in the process of construing civil and labor contracts. While the general clause itself is formally absent in common law systems, its principles have found their way into modern British and American law. Two primary examples include the doctrines of good faith and unconscionability. In a broader sense, the idea of introducing rather indeterminate legal norms to be construed and interpreted by judges appears to be well‑ suited to a common law system. However, as applied to American labor law, the very indeterminacy of these terms has had rather negative effects on the rights of employees and the labor unions that represent them. Specifically, this article examines the good faith requirement in collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the doctrine of unconscionability in employment arbitration agreements, and concludes that they both should be supplemented by more definite standards in order to effectively protect employees.pl
dc.language.isoenpl
dc.publisherWydział Prawa Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, Temida 2pl
dc.rightsUznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported-
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.pl-
dc.subjectarbitrationpl
dc.subjectcollective bargainingpl
dc.subjectgeneral clausepl
dc.subjectgood faithpl
dc.subjectunconscionabilitypl
dc.titleThe Idea of the “General Clause” in American Labor Lawpl
dc.typeArticlepl
dc.rights.holderUznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0);-
dc.identifier.doi10.15290/bsp.2021.26.02.01-
dc.description.Emailcharles.szymanski@gmail.compl
dc.description.BiographicalnoteCharles Szymanski – Lecturer and professor of law at the Faculty of Law of the Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas, Lithuania. Practicing lawyer and professor of law in the United States of America. His scientific interests focus on European, international and comparative labor law as well as on the Alternative Dispute Resolution.pl
dc.description.BiographicalnoteCharles Szymanski – wykładowca i profesor na Wydziale Prawa Uniwersytetu Witolda Wielkiego w Kownie, prawnik praktyk i profesor prawa w Stanach Zjednoczonych. Jego zainteresowania badawcze koncentrują się na europejskim, międzynarodowym i porównawczym prawie pracy oraz na alternatywnych sposobach rozstrzygania sporów.pl
dc.description.AffiliationVytautas Magnus University, Lithuaniapl
dc.description.referencesAndrews R., Moroko R., Employment‑At‑Will in New York Remains Essentially Unchanged after a Century of Refinements, “N.Y. St. B.J.” 1999, vol. 71-OCT.pl
dc.description.referencesAndrias K., Sachs B., Constructing Countervailing Power: Law and Organizing in an Era of Political Inequality, “Yale L.J. 546” 2021, vol. 130.pl
dc.description.referencesArnow‑Richman R., Modifying At‑Will Employment Contracts, “B.C. L. Rev.” 2016, vol. 57.pl
dc.description.referencesBarnes T., Making the Bird Sing: Remedial Notice Reading Requirements and the Efficacy of NLRB Remedies, “Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L.” 2015, vol. 36.pl
dc.description.referencesBingham L., Employment Arbitration: The Repeat Player Effect, “Employee Rts. & Emp. Pol’y J.” 1997, vol. 1.pl
dc.description.referencesBingham L., On Repeat Players, Adhesive Contracts, and the Use of Statistics in Judicial Review of Employment Arbitration Awards, “McGeorge L. Rev.” 1998, vol. 29.pl
dc.description.referencesBodah M., Schneider M., Politics, Ideology, and Adjudication: The German Federal Labor Court and the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, “Comp. Lab. L. & Pol’y J.” 2014, vol. 36.pl
dc.description.referencesBodie M., Labor Interests and Corporate Power, “B.U. L. Rev.” 2019, vol. 99.pl
dc.description.referencesBroome S., An Unconscionable Application of the Unconscionability Doctrine: How the California Courts are Circumventing the Federal Arbitration Act, “Hastings Bus. L.J.” 2006, vol. 3.pl
dc.description.referencesBrudney J., Forsaken Heroes: Covid‑19 and Frontline Essential Workers, “Fordham Urb. L.J.” 2020, vol. 48.pl
dc.description.referencesByrd R., When Arbitration Agreement Provisions Time Travel: Illusory Promises And Continued At‑Will Employment In Baker, “Mo. L. Rev.” 2015, vol. 80.pl
dc.description.referencesLonegrass M., Finding Room For Fairness In Formalism--The Sliding Scale Approach To Unconscionability, “Loy. U. Chi. L.J.” 2012, vol. 44.pl
dc.description.referencesMaatman G., Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: An Overview of 2020 in Workplace Class Action Litigation, “Lab. Law J.” 2021, vol. 889127.pl
dc.description.referencesMalin M., Labor Law Reform: Waiting for Congress? “Chi.-Kent L. Rev.” 1994, vol. 69.pl
dc.description.referencesMalin M., Privatizing Justice - But by how Much? Questions Gilmer did not Answer, “Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol.” 2001, vol. 16.pl
dc.description.referencesMalin M., The Arbitration Fairness Act: It Need not and Should not be an All or Nothing Proposition, “Ind. L.J.” 2012, vol. 87.pl
dc.description.referencesMalin M., Two Models of Interest Arbitration, “Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol.” 2013, vol. 28.pl
dc.description.referencesMeeker C., Defining “Ministerial Aid”: Union Decertification under the National Labor Relations Act “U. Chi. L. Rev.” 1999, vol. 66.pl
dc.description.referencesMorlath J., Individual Rights vs. A Seat at the Table: The Guffey Act as an Alternative Model to the Wagner Act, “Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol’y” 2013, vol. 21.pl
dc.description.referencesMueller E., Ferris S., House Passes Labor Overhaul, Pitting Unions against the Filibuster. Politico (March 9, 2021) https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/09/house-pro-act-labor-unions-474941.pl
dc.description.referencesMurray J., The Uncertain Legacy Of Gilmer: Mandatory Arbitration Of Federal Employment Discrimination Claims, “Fordham Urb. L.J.” 1999, vol. 26.pl
dc.description.referencesSemet A., Political Decision‑Making at the National Labor Relations Board: An Empirical Examination of the Board’s Unfair Labor Practice Decisions Through The Clinton And Bush II Years, “Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L.” 2016, vol. 37.pl
dc.description.referencesNguyen X.-T., Disrupting Adhesion Contracts with #Metoo Innovators “Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L.”, 2019, vol. 26.pl
dc.description.referencesNolan D., Lehr R., Improving NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Procedures, “Tex. L. Rev.” 1978, vol. 57.pl
dc.description.referencesNorris L., The Parity Principle, “N.Y.U. L. Rev.” 2018, vol. 93.pl
dc.description.referencesOtte E., Toxic Secrecy: Non‑Disclosure Agreements and #Metoo “U. Kan. L. Rev.” 2021, vol. 69.pl
dc.description.referencesPoe K., Arbitration Agreements - What is the Employee Actually Signing up for?, “J. Bus. Entrepreneurship & L.” 2019, vol. 12.pl
dc.description.referencesPrats J., Are Arbitration Agreements Necessary for Class‑Action Waivers to be Enforceable? “Fla. B.J.” 2018, vol. 92-DEC.pl
dc.description.referencesRay D., Doing Well by Being Good: How U.S. Labor Law Encourages Employer Good Faith Behavior, “Intercultural Hum. Rts. L. Rev.” 2019, vol. 14.pl
dc.description.referencesRios F., Mandatory Arbitration Agreements: Do They Protect Employers from Adjudicating Title VII Claims? “St. Mary’s L.J.” 1999, vol. 31.pl
dc.description.referencesRubenstein M., Attorney Labor Unions, “N.Y. St. B.J.” 2007, vol. 79-JAN.pl
dc.description.referencesSpitko E., Exempting High‑Level Employees and Small Employers from Legislation Invalidating Predispute Employment Arbitration Agreements, “U.C. Davis L. Rev.” 2009, vol. 43.pl
dc.description.referencesSteber R., Alternative Remedies for Undocumented Workers Left Behind in a Post‑Hoffman Plastic Era, “Cath. U. L. Rev.” 2019, vol. 68.pl
dc.description.referencesSternlight J., Mandatory Arbitration Stymies Progress Towards Justice in Employment Law: Where to, #Metoo? “Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev.” 2019, vol. 54.pl
dc.description.referencesSummers C., Employment at Will in the United States: The Divine Right of Employers, “U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L.” 2000, vol. 3.pl
dc.description.referencesThompson D., Supina S., What Ethical & Strategic Employers Should Do About Arbitration, 14 “Va. L. & Bus. Rev.” 2020, vol. 14.pl
dc.description.referencesTippett E., The Legal Implications of the Metoo Movement, “Minn. L. Rev.” 2018, vol. 103.pl
dc.description.referencesU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Work Stoppages Summary, (February 19, 2021) https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkstp.nr0.htm.pl
dc.description.referencesUnfair Labor Practice Process Chart, National Labor Relations Board, https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/nlrb-process/unfair-labor-practice-process-chart.pl
dc.description.referencesUnion Member Summary, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), January 22, 2021, at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm.pl
dc.description.referencesWynne S., Vaughn M., Silencing Matters of Public Concern: An Analysis of State Legislative Protection of Whistleblowers in Light of the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, “Ala. C.R. & C.L. L. Rev.” 2017, vol. 8.pl
dc.description.referencesVarner K., Hosak K., Blogging: Can Employers and Employees Avoid Getting Caught in the Web?, “Midwest L.J.” 2008, vol. 22.pl
dc.description.referencesViscusi W., The Fatal Failure of the Regulatory State, “Wm. & Mary L. Rev.” 2018, vol. 60.pl
dc.description.referencesVon Mehren A., The Death of Contract, “Colum. L. Rev.” 1974, vol. 75.pl
dc.description.referencesWeston M., Buying Secrecy: Non‑Disclosure Agreements, Arbitration, and Professional Ethics in the #Metoo Era, “U. Ill. L. Rev.” 2021, vol. 2021.pl
dc.description.referencesWexler L., Robbennolt J., Murphy C., #Metoo, Time’s Up, and Theories of Justice, “U. Ill. L. Rev.” 2019, vol. 2019.pl
dc.description.referencesWielsch D., Relational Justice, “Law & Contemp. Probs.” 2013, vol. 76.pl
dc.description.referencesWilson J., Laird A., Practicing before the NLRB, “The Advoc. (Texas)” 2014, vol. 69.pl
dc.description.referencesWolfson T., King B., Even after Concepcion and Italian Colors, Some Arbitration Agreements are Not Enforceable, “Fed. Law.” 2015, vol. 62-FEB.pl
dc.description.referencesWorster R., If it’s Hardly Worth Doing, it’s Hardly Worth Doing Right: How the NLRA’s Goals are Defeated Through Inadequate Remedies, “U. Rich. L. Rev.” 2004, vol. 38.pl
dc.description.referencesZalesne D., The Consentability of Mandatory Employment Arbitration Clauses, “Loy. L. Rev.” 2020, vol. 66 (Spring 2020).pl
dc.description.referencesAltura Communication Solutions, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 85, *1 (2020).pl
dc.description.referencesApt Medical Transportation, Inc., 333 NLRB 760, 767 (2001).pl
dc.description.referencesArbah Hotel Corp., 368 NLRB No. 119 (2019).pl
dc.description.referencesAshford v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 954 F.3d 678, 684–85 (4th Cir. 2020).pl
dc.description.referencesBarrasso v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. 2016 WL 1449567 (D. Mass. 2016), *5.pl
dc.description.referencesBrinks USA, 354 NLRB 312, 325 (2009).pl
dc.description.referencesChamber of Commerce v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322, 1337 (D.C. Cir. 1996).pl
dc.description.referencesCircuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001).pl
dc.description.referencesHTH Corp., 361 NLRB 709, 716 (2014).pl
dc.description.referencesCP Anchorage Hotel 2, LLC, D/B/A Hilton Anchorage 370 NLRB No. 83 (2021).pl
dc.description.referencesDelfingen US-Tex., L.P. v. Valenzuela, 407 S.W.3d 791, 794 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2013, no pet.).pl
dc.description.referencesDrivers, Warehouse & Dairy Employees Union, Local No. 75 v. N.L.R.B., 866 F.2d 1537 (D.C. Cir. 1989).pl
dc.description.referencesEpic Systems v. Lewis, 584 U.S., 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018).pl
dc.description.referencesFallbrook Hosp. Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 785 F.3d 729, 734 (2015).pl
dc.description.referencesGilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Systems, 500 U.S. 20 (1991).pl
dc.description.referencesGreat Lakes Coal Co., 268 NLRB 1207, 1215 (1984).pl
dc.description.referencesHarrington v. Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc., 602 F.3d 113, 126 n.7 (2nd Cir. 2010).pl
dc.description.referencesHooters of America, Inc. v. Phillips, 173 F.3d 933, 938 (4th Cir. 1999).pl
dc.description.referencesIn Re Konig, 318 NLRB 901, 905 (1995).pl
dc.description.referencesIn re Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 419, 424 (Tex. 2010).pl
dc.description.referencesInterfoto Picture Library Ltd. v. Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd. [1989] 1 QB 433 (CA) at 439 (Lord Bingham LJ) (appeal taken from Lambeth Cty. Ct.) (Eng.)).pl
dc.description.referencesK Mart Corp. 242 NLRB 855, 876 (1979).pl
dc.description.referencesMcKinney v. Creative Vision Resources, LLC 2013 WL 351655 (E.D. La. 2013), *25.pl
dc.description.referencesMidwest Casting, 194 NLRB 523 n. 13 (1971).pl
dc.description.referencesNLRB v. Cable Vision, Inc., 660 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1981).pl
dc.description.referencesReuther v. Fowler & Williams, Inc., 386 A.2d 119 (Pa. Super. 1978).pl
dc.description.referencesRichfield Hospitality, Inc. 369 NLRB No. 111 (2020).pl
dc.description.referencesColvin A., An Empirical Study of Employment Arbitration: Case Outcomes and Processes, “J. of Empirical Legal Stud.” 2011, vol. 8.pl
dc.description.referencesRivera‑Vega v. ConAgra, Inc. 876 F.Supp. 1350, 1363 (D. P.R. 1995).pl
dc.description.referencesSalley v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 925 A.2d 115, 592 Pa. 323 (Pa. 2007).pl
dc.description.referencesScepter Ingot Castings, Inc., 341 NLRB 997 (2004).pl
dc.description.referencesStuart Radiator Core Manufacturing Co., Inc., 173 NLRB 125, 130 (1968).pl
dc.description.referencesThibodeau v. Comcast Corp., 912 A.2d 874, 2006 PA Super. 346 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).pl
dc.description.referencesTriumph Aerostructures, Vought Aircraft Division, 369 NLRB No. 123 (2020).pl
dc.description.referencesWeaver v. Harpster, 975 A.2d 555, 562–563 (Pa. 2009).pl
dc.description.referencesWis. Dep’t of Indus. Labor and Human Rel. v. Gould, 475 U.S. 282, 289 (1986).pl
dc.description.referencesYam Seng [2013] EWHC [151].pl
dc.description.referencesCompa L., Not Dead Yet: Preserving Labor Law Strengths while Exploring New Labor Law Strategies, “UC Irvine L. Rev.” 2014, vol. 4.pl
dc.description.referencesCorbett W., “You’re Fired!”: The Common Law Should Respond with the Refashioned Tort of Abusive Discharge, “Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L.” 2020, vol. 41.pl
dc.description.referencesCremades B., Good Faith in International Arbitration, “Am. U. Int’l L. Rev.” 2012, vol. 27.pl
dc.description.referencesDahlstrom E., ERISA Section 510 should be Interpreted to Cover Internal, Unsolicited Employee Complaints, “ABA J. Lab. & Emp. L.” 2011, vol. 26.pl
dc.description.referencesDalrymple E., Would You Like Fries with that Non-Compete? Why Restrictive Covenants Should not be Enforced Against Low Wage Workers, “Wayne St. U. J. Bus. L.” 2020, vol. 3.pl
dc.description.referencesDannin E., From Dictator Game to Ultimatum Game… and Back Again: The Judicial Impasse Amendments, “U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L.” 2004, vol. 6.pl
dc.description.referencesDannin E., NLRA Values, Labor Values, American Values, “Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L.” 2005, vol. 26.pl
dc.description.referencesDavidson S., Determining Employment Discrimination Case Merits under State And Federal Law, “Aspatore” 2012, vol. 2012 WL 3058210.pl
dc.description.referencesDeMichele M., Bales R., Unilateral‑Modification Provisions in Employment Arbitration Agreements, “Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J.” 2006, vol. 24.pl
dc.description.referencesDrummonds H., Beyond the Employee Free Choice Act: Unleashing the States in Labor‑Management Relations Policy, 19 “Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y” 2009, vol. 19.pl
dc.description.referencesDrummonds H., Reforming Labor Law by Reforming Labor Law Preemption Doctrine to Allow the States to Make More Labor Relations Policy, “La. L. Rev.” 2009, vol. 70.pl
dc.description.referencesEaton L., Arbitration Agreements in Labor and Employment Contracts: Well within the Reach of the FAA, “J. Disp. Resol.” 2002, vol. 2002.pl
dc.description.referencesEnger N., Offers You Can’t Refuse: Post‑Hire Noncompete Agreement Insertions and Procedural Unconscionability Doctrine, “Wis. L. Rev. ” 2020, vol. 2020.pl
dc.description.referencesFisk C., Pulver A., First Contract Arbitration and the Employee Free Choice Act, “La. L. Rev.” 2009, vol. 70.pl
dc.description.referencesFrankel R., Concepcion And Mis-Concepcion: Why Unconscionability Survives The Supreme Court’s Arbitration Jurisprudence, “J. Disp. Resol.” 2014, vol. 2014.pl
dc.description.referencesGardner A., George R.R. Martin’s Faith Militant in Modern America: The Establishment Clause and a State’s Ability to Delegate Policing Powers to Private Police Forces Operated by Religious Institutions, “Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J.” 2020, vol. 29.pl
dc.description.referencesGhaffary S., Kantrowitz A., “Don’t be evil” isn’t a normal company value. But Google isn’t a normal company. Vox, (Feb. 16, 2021) https://www.vox.com/recode/2021/2/16/22280502/google-dont-be-evil-land-of-the-giants-podcast.pl
dc.description.referencesGiesbrecht‑McKee J., The Fairness Problem: Mandatory Arbitration in Employment Contracts, “Willamette L. Rev.” 2014, vol. 50.pl
dc.description.referencesGlynn M., #Timesup for Confidential Employment Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Claims, “Geo. Wash. L. Rev.” 2020, vol. 88.pl
dc.description.referencesGordon J., Silence for Sale, “Ala. L. Rev.” 2020, vol. 71.pl
dc.description.referencesGross J., Yet Another Reappraisal of the Taft‑Hartley Act Emergency Injunctions, “U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L.” 2005, vol. 7.pl
dc.description.referencesGrundmann S., Mazeaud D., General Clauses and Standards in European Contract Law: Comparative Law, EC Law and Contract Law Codification, The Hague 2005.pl
dc.description.referencesHengemuhle L., Striving for Consistency: The Battle of Jurisdiction in Enforcing Arbitration Awards, “B.C. L. Rev. E-Supplement” 2018, vol. 59.pl
dc.description.referencesHodges A., Employee Voice In Arbitration, “Employee Rts. & Emp. Pol’y J.” 2018, vol. 22.pl
dc.description.referencesHodges A., Trilogy Redux: Using Arbitration to Rebuild the Labor Movement, “Minn. L. Rev.” 2014, vol. 98.pl
dc.description.referencesHogg M.A., The Implication of Terms in Fact: Good Faith, Contextualism and Interpretation, “Geo. Wash. L. Rev.” 2017, vol. 85.pl
dc.description.referencesHorton D., The Arbitration Rules: Procedural Rulemaking by Arbitration Providers, “Minn. L. Rev.” 2020, vol. 105.pl
dc.description.referencesIannaccone C., Spada G., Silversten R., Arbitration and Employment Disputes: Drafting to Maximize Employer Protection, “ACCA Docket” 2000, vol. 18, no. 2.pl
dc.description.referencesKaspar D., Stallworth L., The Impact of a Grievant’s Offer of Apology and The Decision‑Making Process of Labor Arbitrators: A Case Analysis, “Harv. Negot. L. Rev.” 2012, vol. 17.pl
dc.description.referencesLaJeunesse R.Jr., The Controversial “Card-Check” Bill, Stalled in the United States Congress, Presents Serious Legal and Policy Issues, “Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.” 2010, vol. 14.pl
dc.description.referencesLi Y., Applying the Doctrine Of Unconscionability to Employment Arbitration Agreements, with Emphasis on Class Action/Arbitration Waivers, “Whittier L. Rev.” 2010, vol. 31.pl
dc.description.volume26pl
dc.description.number2pl
dc.description.firstpage11pl
dc.description.lastpage49pl
dc.identifier.citation2Białostockie Studia Prawniczepl
Występuje w kolekcji(ach):Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, 2021, Vol. 26 nr 2

Pliki w tej pozycji:
Plik Opis RozmiarFormat 
BSP_26_2_C_Szymanski_The_Idea_of_the_General_Clause.pdf335,46 kBAdobe PDFOtwórz
Pokaż uproszczony widok rekordu Zobacz statystyki


Pozycja ta dostępna jest na podstawie licencji Licencja Creative Commons CCL Creative Commons