In the case of Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) takes center stage once again. Unlike previous cases primarily concerning whether pre-dispute arbitration agreements should be enforced, this case delves into an exemption within the statute for transportation workers. Specifically, it addresses whether commercial truck drivers, like those transporting Wonder Bread for Flowers Foods, fall under this exemption.
The argument hinges on the interpretation of the phrase “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” While employers contend that the exemption was historically motivated by regulatory regimes specific to seamen and railway workers, workers argue that their involvement in interstate transportation of goods parallels that of seamen and railroad employees.
Employers emphasize the nature of their business, asserting that since they are in baking rather than transportation, their workers cannot be classified as transportation workers under the exemption. They employ the interpretive canon of “eiusdem generis” to argue that the catchall phrase in the statute should be limited to workers within the transportation industry.
However, workers point out the absurdity of this interpretation, especially in a modern context where retailers like Amazon operate vast delivery networks. They argue that focusing on the nature of the employer’s business overlooks the essential role of workers engaged in interstate commerce, regardless of the specific industry.
As the case unfolds, it presents the justices with familiar territory given their experience with the FAA. The outcome of this argument holds significant implications for the application of mandatory arbitration in the transportation sector and beyond.
#LegalExemptions #TransportationWorkers #FederalArbitrationAct #MandatoryArbitration #LegalDebate #WonderBread #TruckDrivers #InterstateCommerce
lawrota.com 
Leave a comment