Barrentine et al. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., et al.

Supreme Court of United States
450 U.S. 728 (1981)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employee's statutory rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are independent of contractual rights under a collective-bargaining agreement and are not waivable. Therefore, a prior unsuccessful submission of a wage claim to binding arbitration does not preclude the employee from subsequently bringing an FLSA action in federal court based on the same underlying facts.

Facts:

Petitioners were truck drivers employed by respondent Arkansas-Best Freight Systems, Inc.
They were required by federal regulations and company practice to conduct pre-trip safety inspections of their trucks.
If a truck failed inspection, the drivers had to transport it to the company's on-site repair facility.
Arkansas-Best Freight Systems did not compensate the drivers for the time spent on these pre-trip safety inspections and transportation to the repair facility.
The drivers' collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) with the company, negotiated by their union, stated that employees shall be paid for 'all time spent in the service of the Employer.'
Petitioner Barrentine filed a grievance under the CBA, claiming the unpaid time violated the agreement.

Procedural Posture:

Petitioner Barrentine and another driver filed grievances against Arkansas-Best Freight Systems, Inc. pursuant to their collective-bargaining agreement.
The grievances were submitted to a joint grievance committee for a final and binding decision.
The joint grievance committee, composed of union and employer representatives, rejected the grievances without explanation.
Petitioners filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, alleging violations of the FLSA and a breach of the union's duty of fair representation.
The District Court found no breach of the duty of fair representation and, therefore, did not address the merits of the FLSA claim, letting the committee's decision stand.
Petitioners appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the employees had voluntarily submitted their wage dispute to binding arbitration and were thus barred from filing a subsequent lawsuit on the same claim.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Can workers sue in federal court for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act after losing the same wage claim in union arbitration?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Brennan

Yes, workers can sue in federal court after arbitration. An employee's submission of a wage claim to arbitration under a collective-bargaining agreement does not bar a subsequent lawsuit in federal court to enforce non-waivable statutory rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court reasoned that FLSA rights are distinct from contractual rights and were established by Congress to provide minimum substantive guarantees to individual workers, not to be bargained away by a union. Citing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., the Court highlighted that while arbitration is suited for resolving contractual disputes ('the law of the shop'), the judicial forum is the appropriate venue for enforcing statutory rights ('the law of the land'). The Court noted two key reasons why arbitration is an inadequate forum for FLSA claims: 1) a union, in balancing collective interests, might not vigorously pursue an individual's meritorious statutory claim, and 2) arbitrators, whose expertise lies in contract interpretation, may lack the competence and authority to resolve complex legal questions under the FLSA and enforce public law.

Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger

No, workers should not be able to sue after arbitration. An employee who voluntarily submits a wage claim to final and binding arbitration should be precluded from then bringing the same claim to federal court. The dissent argued that while the substantive right to a minimum wage under the FLSA cannot be waived, the parties should be free to agree on a method for resolving disputes about that right, such as arbitration. It emphasized the strong national policy favoring arbitration as a faster, cheaper, and more effective means of resolving labor disputes compared to litigation. The dissent distinguished this case from Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., stating that a simple wage dispute is fundamentally different from a Title VII discrimination claim, as unions are traditional allies of employees in wage matters, not potential adversaries. Forcing such routine claims into federal courts undermines the parties' agreement and unnecessarily burdens the judicial system.

Analysis:

This decision extends the principle from Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. (a Title VII discrimination case) to the context of wage and hour claims under the FLSA. It solidifies the doctrine that certain individual, statutory employment rights are separate from and superior to collective contractual rights negotiated by a union. The ruling establishes that an employee can pursue remedies in two different forums: arbitration for contractual rights and court for statutory rights, even when both claims arise from the same facts. This significantly limits the finality of arbitration in disputes where statutory rights are implicated, ensuring that employees have a judicial forum to vindicate fundamental protections like minimum wage, regardless of their union's actions or the outcome of a grievance process.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Barrentine et al. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., et al. (1981)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature