In any contract between two parties, conflicts will always arise at one time or another (Scheb, 2002). When this happens, it takes a lot of time and costs a lot of resources for the conflict to be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. Therefore, it is always ideal for the law to provide for the settlement of such disputes in a manner that is less costly in terms of time and finances. Common conflicts have involved employees and their employers. This trend led to the provision of mandatory arbitration agreements which allowed for all disputes to be resolved between the two parties with a chosen arbitrator.
However, these mandatory arbitration agreements ought not to be enforceable owing to their gross flaws, notably being so much in favor of the employee. Discussion Mandatory arbitration agreements are not to be enforced because they rob the employee of justice in most cases. The employees who signs the agreement is never really signing it for what it is but as a way to ensure one gets the job one desires. Using the agreement later to resolve conflicts places the employee in a disadvantaged position (Walsh, 2009).
Since most conflicts are work-related; and given that employees have no power over their employers, mandatory arbitration agreements have and will always favor the employer who signs them with more understanding of their future implications. Given that in most of the disputes the employees are the plaintiffs and their employers the defendants, the latter have come to use mandatory arbitration agreements to ensure they have an upper hand over thee former by making sure that mandatory arbitration agreements are signed upon employment, rendering any court interventions in the matter absolutely impossible (Walsh, 2009).
For instance, when an employee is dismissed from work for suffering from an incapacitating illness and the courts maintain that arbitration be used just because the employee signed a mandatory arbitration agreement on employment, then the employee is evidently denied justice as the exact circumstances of one’s firing might not really allow for fair arbitration. Enforcing mandatory arbitration agreements serves to enhance the domineering power that employers have always had on their employees; and to stand in the way of justice.
The essence of any law ought to be serving mankind and not mankind serving the law (Walsh, 2009). Conclusion On this basis, mandatory arbitration agreements ought to be suspended in situations where the court is of the view that there was no real agreement by the plaintiff at the time of signing the agreement; given that at such times the employer always has a greater bargaining power.
The court also ought to allow the suspension of such agreements in cases where it is proven or believed that the exact circumstances that led to the conflict could not have been adequately dealt with at the time of signing the agreement, especially considering that at such a time the plaintiff was new to the defendant and was obliged to do as the defendant desired. Word count: 500 References Scheb, J. M. (2002). An introduction to the American legal system. Cengage Learning Walsh, D. J. (2009). Employment Law for Human Resource Practice. Cengage Learning