The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (based in Richmond, VA), ruled on March 16, 2012, that a Filipino seaman injured in the U.S., was required by his employment contract to arbitrate his injury claims in the Philippines. The Court's decision rested largely on the application of the "Convention Act" 9 U.S.C. sec. 201, which recognizes and enforces commercial arbitration agreements in international contracts. The Fourth Circuit, in line with prior rulings by the 9th and 11th Circuit Courts, ruled that the Convention Act, and hence the arbitration agreement in the employment contract, supplanted the Seaman's Wage Act (46 U.S.C. 10313), and required arbitration of the wage and other claims.
Addressing the injured seaman's Jones Act claim, and specifically his argument that requiring arbitration would contravene U.S. public policy by denying him access to U.S. law under the Jones Act, the Court did not entirely foreclose a public policy argument. What the Court did was to find that a public-policy argument (i.e. a non-U.S. arbitration could deprive the injured seaman of a Jones Act remedy), could be made only after an arbitration award was made, in what it termed the "award-enforcement stage."
Ultimately the Court also found the lower court (U.S. District Court/Maryland), erred in its dismissal of the case even though it agreed with the lower court's enforcement of the arbitration requirement. The Fourth Circuit held that the District Court could retain jurisdiction over the case after the arbitration award stage to later consider the policy arguments made by the seaman.
The Court also found the District Court could retain jurisdiction over the seaman's request for injunctive relief regarding maintenance and cure benefits, which the District Court had denied as moot when it ordered arbitration.
No comments:
Post a Comment