United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 24, 2005
FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30380
JOSELITO MADRIAGA LIM, on behalf of himself and all other current
and former employees of Offshore Specialty Fabricators, Inc.,
similarly situated; ADELITO M. AGANON; RICHARD AGCAOILI; LUIS
AGNABO; ANTONIO P. ALCANTARA; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
and
MARIO M. CABANLIT, on behalf of himself and all other current and
former employees of Offshore Specialty Fabricators, Inc., similarly
situated; JIMMY GADLAW LIM, on behalf of himself and all other
current and former employees of Offshore Specialty Fabricators,
Inc., similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Intervenor Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
OFFSHORE SPECIALTY FABRICATORS, INC.,
Defendant-Intervenor Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:
In this 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) interlocutory appeal, Offshore
Specialty Fabricators, Inc. (OSFI), challenges the denial of its
motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for
improper venue. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1), (b)(3). Plaintiff
seamen are residents and citizens of the Philippines. Their
international employment contracts at issue, controlled by the
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards, 10 June 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, T.I.A.S. No. 6997, 330
U.N.T.S. 38, reprinted in 9 U.S.C.A. § 201 note (hereinafter,
Convention), require arbitration of plaintiffs’ Fair Labor
Standards Act claims, notwithstanding exceptions claimed by
plaintiffs. (One claimed exception is pursuant to a Louisiana
statute which expresses that State’s strong public policy against
forum selection clauses in employment contracts.) VACATED and
REMANDED.
I.
OSFI, a Louisiana corporation, employed Joselito Madriaga Lim,
a Philippine resident and citizen, to work aboard the OSFI DB-1, a
foreign-flagged vessel whose home port is Port Vila, Vanuatu. The
Philippine government requires foreign employers or their agents to
employ Filipino workers through the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA), a department of the Ministry of Labor and
Employment. The POEA-mandated employment contracts for seamen
incorporate the Philippine government’s Standard Terms and
Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On Board
Ocean-Going Vessels (Standard Terms).
Lim’s employment contract was executed through the POEA and
subject to the Standard Terms. Those terms include dispute
2
resolution procedures, which require, inter alia, resolving
employment claims through arbitration in the Philippines. Section
29 of the Standard Terms states:
In cases of claims and disputes arising from
this employment, the parties covered by a
collective bargaining agreement shall submit
the claim or dispute to the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary
arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. If the
parties are not covered by a collective
bargaining agreement, the parties may at their
option submit the claim or dispute to either
the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 8042 otherwise
known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995 or to the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary
arbitrators or panel of arbitrators....
Lim filed this action against OSFI in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, claiming
violations of the minimum wage and maximum hour (overtime)
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et
seq. (FLSA). See 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207. Lim’s first amended
complaint (before OSFI answered) made this an opt-in collective
action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Approximately 100
similarly-situated Filipino seamen have opted in.
In its answer, and based on the Standard Terms’ arbitration
clause, OSFI claimed, inter alia, lack of subject matter
jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(1)) and improper venue (Rule 12(b)(3)).
OSFI moved to dismiss, claiming: the Standard Terms require
arbitration in the Philippines; and the Convention, as implemented
3
at 9 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. as Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA), requires district court enforcement of the arbitration
clause. (Both the Philippines and the United States are
signatories to the Convention.)
Plaintiffs responded that, although our court had held the
Convention applies to seamen’s contracts, see Francisco v. STOLT
ACHIEVEMENT MT, 293 F.3d 270, 273 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 537
U.S. 1030 (2002), the decision was in error and the Convention
should not apply. In the alternative, plaintiffs asserted that the
arbitration clause is unenforceable for three reasons. First,
arbitration has never been required in seamen’s wage litigation.
Second, the arbitration clause is contrary to Louisiana public
policy against a forum selection clause in an employment contract.
(An arbitration clause is a subset of a forum selection clause.
See Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 519 (1974).) And
third, the arbitration clause is invalid under the terms of the
Convention, because plaintiffs’ FLSA claims are rooted in United
States law and can not be resolved through foreign arbitration.
The district court denied dismissal, holding the arbitration
clause violated Louisiana law, which signaled a strong public
policy against a forum selection clause in an employment contract
and rendered the clause unenforceable. Accordingly, the district
court stated it did not need to address the other two exceptions
advanced by plaintiffs.
4
OSFI moved for rehearing or, in the alternative, for the
district court to certify the jurisdiction and venue issues to this
court for interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
The district court chose the latter and offered the following
controlling questions for interlocutory appeal: (1) whether the
Convention or the Supremacy Clause of the United States
Constitution, Article VI, clause 2, requires enforcement of the
arbitration agreement in the employment contract; (2) if so,
whether there is an exception, based on Louisiana’s anti-forum
selection clause statute, LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 23:921(A)(2) (2004);
(3) if the Louisiana statute is not preempted, whether it applies
to the employment contract; and (4) if so, whether plaintiffs
agreed to, or ratified, the arbitration clause pursuant to the
exception in the Louisiana statute. Our court granted OSFI’s
motion to appeal.
II.
“As the text of § 1292(b) indicates, appellate jurisdiction
applies to the order certified to the court of appeals, and is not
tied to the particular question[s] formulated by the district
court.” Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 205 (1996)
(emphasis in original). The above-noted questions presented in the
district court’s order assist in determining the propriety of the
ruling; but they fail to include the other two exceptions claimed
in district court by plaintiffs, which are also advanced here and
5
which we address. (No authority need be cited for the rule that an
issue presented in district court, but not ruled on there, may be
raised on appeal in support of the ruling being challenged.)
OSFI’s method of invoking the Convention must be addressed first,
however.
A.
Plaintiffs seek relief because OSFI did not request the
district court to stay these proceedings and order arbitration.
OSFI responds that, based on the arbitration clause, it properly
moved to dismiss, under Rules 12(b)(1) (lack of subject matter
jurisdiction) and 12(b)(3) (improper venue). As noted, foreign
arbitration clauses are deemed a “subset of foreign forum selection
clauses in general”. Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V SKY
REEFER, 515 U.S. 528, 534 (1995). Therefore, analysis of foreign
forum selection clauses can be extended to foreign arbitration
clauses. Id.
1.
Our court has noted, but declined to address, the “enigmatic
question of whether motions to dismiss on the basis of forum
selection clauses are properly brought as motions under FED. R. CIV.
P. 12(b)(1) [or] 12(b)(3) ....” Haynsworth v. The Corporation, 121
F.3d 956, 961 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1072 (1998).
In any event, our court has treated a motion to dismiss based on a
forum selection clause as properly brought under Rule 12(b)(3)
6
(improper venue). Albany Ins. Co. v. Almacenadora Somex, S.A., 5
F.3d 907, 909 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1993). We have also affirmed,
without comment on procedural posture, a district court’s granting
a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss based on a forum selection
clause. Mitsui & Co. (USA), Inc. v. Mira M/V, 111 F.3d 33, 37 (5th
Cir. 1997). And, other circuits agree that a motion to dismiss
based on an arbitration or forum selection clause is proper under
Rule 12(b)(3). See Continental Ins. Co. v. Polish S.S. Co., 346
F.3d 281, 282 (2d Cir. 2003) (affirming Rule 12(b)(3) dismissal in
favor of foreign arbitration); Lipcon v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s,
London, 148 F.3d 1285, 1290 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525
U.S. 1093 (1999) (motion to dismiss based on forum selection clause
in international agreement should be brought under Rule 12(b)(3));
Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 324 (9th Cir. 1996)
(Rule 12(b)(3) motion proper method to invoke forum selection
clause); Frietsch v. Refco, Inc., 56 F.3d 825, 830 (7th Cir. 1995)
(same).
Although circuits are split on the issue of whether Rule
12(b)(1) or 12(b)(3) is the proper motion for seeking dismissal
based on a forum selection or arbitration clause, see 5B WRIGHT &
MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE, § 1352 (3d ed. 2004), neither side
has substantively briefed the merits of the question. Because our
court has accepted Rule 12(b)(3) as a proper method for seeking
7
dismissal based on a forum selection clause, we need not decide
whether a Rule 12(b)(1) motion would be appropriate.
2.
Claiming a right to trial to determine whether they are
required to arbitrate, plaintiffs rely on 9 U.S.C. § 4 (allowing
“[a] party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of
another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration” to
petition district court to direct arbitration). Plaintiffs do not
explain how this statute applies. Because the issue is not
adequately briefed, we decline to address it. See United States v.
Thames, 214 F.3d 608, 611 n.3 (5th Cir. 2000); see also FED. R. APP.
P. 28(a)(9)(A).
B.
Accordingly, we turn to the order under review. We need only
address two issues because (1) the Convention and the Supremacy
Clause require enforcement of the arbitration clause; and (2) there
is no exception to that requirement based on any one of the three
advanced by plaintiffs, including Louisiana’s anti-forum-selection-
clause statute.
1.
The Supremacy Clause provides that laws and treaties arising
under the Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby....” U.S. CONST.
art. VI, cl. 2. It goes without saying that, upon the United States
8
signing a treaty and Congress adopting enabling legislation, the
treaty becomes the supreme law of the land. E.g., Sedco, Inc. v.
Petroleos Mexicanos Mexican Nat. Oil Co., 767 F.2d 1140, 1145 (5th
Cir. 1985). It also goes without saying that whether the Supremacy
Clause and the Convention require enforcement of the arbitration
clause is a question of law, reviewed de novo. E.g., Witty v. Delta
Air Lines, Inc., 366 F.3d 380, 382 (5th Cir. 2004).
In 1970, Congress enacted the Convention’s enabling
legislation, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208 (Convention Act). E.g. Scherk, 417
U.S. at 520 n.15. If an international arbitration clause falls
under the Convention Act, “the Convention requires district courts
to order arbitration”. Sedco, 767 F.2d at 1145; see also 9 U.S.C.
§ 201 (“The Convention ... shall be enforced in United States courts
....”).
The Convention applies to international arbitration clauses
when “(1) there is an agreement in writing to arbitrate the dispute,
(2) the agreement provides for arbitration in the territory of a
Convention signatory, (3) the agreement arises out of a commercial
legal relationship, and (4) a party to the agreement is not an
American citizen”. Francisco, 293 F.3d at 273 (emphasis added); see
also 9 U.S.C. § 202 (listing same requirements). In Francisco, our
court considered a Filipino seaman’s employment contract identical
to the one at issue and clarified that such contracts “arise[] out
of a commercial legal relationship”. 293 F.3d at 273. Thus,
9
plaintiffs’ contracts are controlled by the Convention: the
contracts are in writing; they require arbitration in the
Philippines, a signatory to the Convention; they describe a
“contractual legal relationship”; and plaintiffs are not American
citizens. (Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of our court’s holding
in Francisco that the Convention applies to seamen’s employment
contracts. Barring a change of law, “[i]t has long been a rule of
this court that no panel of this circuit can overrule a decision
previously made by another”. Legros v. Panther Servs. Group, Inc.,
863 F.2d 345, 349 (5th Cir. 1988).)
Because the United States is a signatory to the Convention, and
Congress enacted enabling legislation, the Convention is applicable
as federal law in this case. Further, unless there is an exception,
as discussed below, the Convention requires the arbitration clause
in plaintiffs’ employment contracts be honored.
2.
Accordingly, we turn to whether there is an exception to the
Convention’s mandate that the employment claims in question be
arbitrated according to the Standard Terms. Of course, whether a
forum selection or arbitration clause is enforceable is a question
of law reviewed de novo. E.g., Mitsui, 111 F.3d at 35. Likewise,
questions of preemption are reviewed de novo. E.g., Witty, 366 F.3d
at 382.
10
OSFI maintains the Standard Terms’ arbitration clause applies
without exception to plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs dispute that
on three bases. They maintain: (1) the clause is unreasonable, and
therefore invalid, under the test announced in M/S Bremen v. Zapata
Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 15 (1972) (forum selection clause valid
unless contravenes strong public policy), because the Louisiana
statute evinces a strong public policy against arbitration clauses
in employment contracts; (2) the arbitration clause is invalid
because arbitration is not warranted in seamen’s wage litigation;
and (3) their FLSA claims are not arbitrable, so the Convention, by
its own terms, does not apply.
a.
Unlike the Convention, Louisiana law prohibits employers’ use
of choice of forum and choice of law clauses in employment
contracts:
The provisions of every employment contract or
agreement, or provisions thereof, by which any
foreign or domestic employer or any other
person or entity includes a choice of forum
clause or choice of law clause in an employee’s
contract of employment or collective bargaining
agreement, or attempts to enforce either a
choice of forum clause or choice of law clause
in any civil or administrative action involving
an employee, shall be null and void ....
LA. REV. STAT. § 23:921(A)(2). Again, the Supremacy Clause declares
that federal law “shall be the supreme Law of the Land [,] ... any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
11
notwithstanding”. U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2 (emphasis added).
“Where [state] laws conflict with a treaty, they must bow to the
superior federal policy.” Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429, 441
(1968) (emphasis added).
i.
OSFI maintains the Convention preempts Louisiana law. It
analogizes that preemption question to those presented in Southland
Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984), and OPE International, L.P. v.
Chet Morrison Contractors, Inc., 258 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 2001).
Southland held § 2 of the FAA, which declares arbitration
clauses in American contracts “shall be valid, irrevocable, and
enforceable”, preempted a California statute forbidding arbitration
of disputes arising from interstate contracts between franchisors
and franchisees. 465 U.S. at 10. OPE International held the FAA
preempted a Louisiana statute forbidding arbitration of contracts
for public and private works when one party was located, and the
work was done, in Louisiana. 258 F.3d at 447.
OSFI relies properly on Southland and OPE. “In substance, the
Convention replicates the Federal Arbitration Act.” Sedco, 767 F.2d
at 1146. Both statutes apply to employment contracts in general.
See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 109 (2001)
(FAA applies to employment contracts other than seamen’s and
transportation workers’ contracts as exempted by § 1); Francisco,
12
293 F.3d at 273 (Convention applies to seamen’s employment
contracts).
Southland noted that, in the FAA, Congress “declared a
national policy favoring arbitration and withdrew the power of the
states to require a judicial forum for the resolution of claims
which the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration”.
465 U.S. at 10 (emphasis added). The Louisiana anti-forum-
selection-clause statute conflicts directly with the Convention’s
mandate to enforce arbitration clauses. Applying a straightforward
preemption analysis, the Convention, as the “supreme Law of the
Land”, preempts the directly conflicting Louisiana statute, unless,
as plaintiffs claim, it satisfies an exception to the Convention.
ii.
According to plaintiffs, the arbitration clause should not be
enforced because it is contrary to strong Louisiana public policy.
The Supreme Court has held forum selection clauses in international
contracts are “prima facie valid” and should be upheld absent a
clear showing of unreasonableness, unjustness, overreaching, or
fraud. Bremen, 407 U.S. at 10, 15. Bremen held a choice of forum
clause may be unreasonable when “enforcement would contravene a
strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought, whether
declared by statute or by judicial decision”. Id. at 15 (emphasis
added). The Convention mirrors this policy concern by allowing a
court charged with enforcing an arbitral award to refuse enforcement
13
if “[t]he recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary
to the public policy of that country”. Convention, art. V, § 2(b)
(emphasis added).
Forum is broadly defined as “[a] court or other judicial body;
a place of jurisdiction”. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (8th ed. 2004). In
performing the instant Bremen reasonableness analysis, an underlying
issue is which forum – the United States or Louisiana – is relevant
for purposes of the test. As they did in district court, plaintiffs
assume Louisiana is the relevant forum. The district court agreed,
noting that, although plaintiffs raised claims under a federal
statute (FLSA) in federal court, they could have brought them in
state court. It ruled: “The fortuity (for defendant) of plaintiffs
electing to bring their claims in federal court should not exempt
defendant from Louisiana laws intended to apply to employers in this
state”. Lim v. Offshore Specialty Fabricators, Inc., No. 02-2126
(E.D. La. 28 January 2003)(order denying motions to dismiss)
(emphasis added).
On the other hand, it is quite understandable that the
Convention and its enabling act imply that the forum at issue is
national, rather than local. Cf. Convention, art. V, § 2 (a)
(allowing a country to refuse enforcement of an arbitral award if
the award violates the country’s public policy); 9 U.S.C. § 205
(giving federal courts jurisdiction over cases to which the
Convention applies, regardless of amount in controversy). Likewise,
14
the Convention envisions the applicable forum to be the signatory
country, not individual states within it. See Convention, art. XI,
§ (a) (clarifying that the obligations of a signatory with a federal
government are the same as those of a signatory that is a unitary
state). Further, for obvious reasons, when analyzing the
reasonableness of a choice of forum clause in an international
contract, courts do not ignore federal law and policy. See Afram
Carriers, Inc. v. Moeykens, 145 F.3d 298, 302-03 (5th Cir. 1998),
cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1141 (1999); Lipcon, 148 F.3d at 1298-99;
Dahiya v. Talmidge Int’l, Ltd., 371 F.3d 207, 220 (5th Cir. 2004)
(DeMoss, J., dissenting).
Because plaintiffs brought FLSA claims in federal court, and
the contested clause mandates arbitration in a foreign country (as
opposed to a State), the relevant forum is arguably the United
States, a signatory to the Convention. On this record, including
plaintiffs’ not being residents of Louisiana, as discussed infra,
we need not decide whether the United States is the relevant forum.
Accordingly, we will consider both United States and Louisiana
public policy in our Bremen reasonableness analysis.
(a)
Plaintiffs contend the arbitration clause is unenforceable in
the light of Louisiana’s strong public policy against choice of
forum clauses, as evidenced both by the above-quoted statute, LA.
REV. STAT. § 23:921(A)(2), and by judicial decision, Sawicki v. K/S
15
STAVANGER PRINCE, 802 So. 2d 598 (La. 2002). OSFI relies on the
dissent in Dahiya to support its response that Louisiana public
policy against a choice of forum clause (arbitration clause) in
employment contracts does not outweigh the federal policy of
enforcing international arbitration clauses.
For obvious reasons, a party opposing, on public policy
grounds, enforcement of an international arbitration clause must
meet a “heavy burden of proof”. Bremen, 407 U.S. at 17. “[T]here
is a strong presumption in favor of arbitration and a party seeking
to invalidate an arbitration agreement bears the burden of
establishing its invalidity”. Carter v. Countrywide Credit Indus.,
Inc., 362 F.3d 294, 297 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Gilmer v.
Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 26 (1991)).
The above-quoted § 23:921(A)(2) of the Louisiana Labor and
Worker’s Compensation Code, enacted in 1999, prohibits choice of
forum or choice of law clauses in all employment contracts.
Sawicki, 802 So. 2d at 603. Section 23:921(A)(2) is a subsection
of a statute concerning restraints on business; the Louisiana
Supreme Court has held generally that the statute demonstrates
“strong Louisiana public policy concerning forum selection clauses”.
Id. at 603. Accordingly, as plaintiffs note, both Louisiana statute
and judicial decision evince a policy against enforcement of
arbitration clauses in employment contracts.
16
(b)
As has been done for the contrary Louisiana public policy, the
federal public policy favoring domestic and international
arbitration agreements has been declared by both statute and
judicial decision. Repeatedly, Congress has endorsed arbitration
clauses, first through passage of the FAA, and then through adoption
of the Convention and implementation of the Convention Act.
Likewise, federal courts have supported this strong policy in favor
of arbitration. “[Q]uestions of arbitrability must be addressed
with a healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration.”
Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 26. In the context of the Convention, the
Supreme Court held:
[C]oncerns of international comity, respect for
the capacities of foreign and transnational
tribunals, and sensitivity to the need of the
international commercial system for
predictability in the resolution of disputes
require that we enforce the parties’
[arbitration] agreement, even assuming that a
contrary result would be forthcoming in a
domestic context.
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S.
614, 629 (1985) (emphasis added); see also Scherk, 417 U.S. at 520
n.15. More specifically, federal courts have endorsed federal
arbitration policy by applying the Convention to seamen’s employment
contracts. See Francisco, 293 F.3d at 274; Bautista v. Star
Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289, 1300 (11th Cir. 2005).
17
In addition, in weighing these competing policy concerns, it
must be noted that plaintiffs’ employment contracts do not present
the inequities the Louisiana statute was crafted to prevent. That
statute seeks to protect Louisiana citizen-employees from being
subjected to litigation in a foreign forum, under laws with which
they are not familiar and before a foreign body. See Testimony of
Representative Jackson, Official Minutes of Louisiana Senate
Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations, Hearing on Senate Bill
915 (22 April 1999). Plaintiffs are Philippine residents and
citizens. Their employment contracts do not require them to bring
claims in a foreign forum, but instead require OSFI to submit to
arbitration in plaintiffs’ home country, before plaintiffs’
countrymen.
In sum, on this record, given the strong federal policy in
favor of international arbitration agreements in general, and the
application of the Convention to seamen’s employment contracts in
particular, the overall balance of public policy concerns favors
enforcing the arbitration agreements. Plaintiffs do not meet the
“high burden of proof” necessary to show public policy renders the
arbitration clause unreasonable.
b.
For the second claimed exception, plaintiffs maintain
“[a]rbitration has never been required in seamen’s wage litigation”
and clauses requiring such arbitration are invalid. They cite U.S.
18
Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. Arguelles, 400 U.S. 351, 357 (1971), which
applied § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §
185 (LMRA) (providing federal remedy to enforce grievance and
arbitration provisions of collective bargaining agreements).
Arguelles held § 301 did not deprive seamen of their right to assert
in federal court wage claims arising under 46 U.S.C. § 596 (now 46
U.S.C. § 10313) (controlling seamen’s individual wage claims against
employer). Id. For the following reasons, Arguelles is
distinguishable.
First, the claims in Arguelles addressed seamen’s judicial
remedies for denial of contractual wages. Id. at 354. Plaintiffs
do not claim they were not paid according to their contract;
instead, they make claims under the FLSA for extra-contractual
wages. Also at issue in Arguelles was the duty to follow the
collective bargaining grievance procedure under the LMRA, a statute
and procedure absent here. Finally, while the Arguelles court
refused to hold § 301 of the LMRA replaced access to courts, the
Court did not declare seamen’s wages conclusively exempt from
arbitration in all situations. Id. at 356 (seamen may, if they
choose, “use the processes of grievance and arbitration”).
c.
Plaintiffs’ final claimed exception is that the Convention does
not compel arbitration of their FLSA claims because they are not
subject to arbitration. OSFI reserves the question of whether the
19
FLSA applies to plaintiffs’ claims, but contends that, in any event,
they are subject to arbitration.
Article II of the Convention states: “Each Contracting State
shall recognize an agreement in writing under which the parties
undertake to submit to arbitration ... concerning a subject matter
capable of settlement by arbitration”; and “[t]he court of a
Contracting State ... shall, at the request of one of the parties,
refer the parties to arbitration, unless it finds that the said
agreement is ... incapable of being performed”. Convention, art.
II, §§ 1, 3 (emphasis added). Article V states: “Recognition and
enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the
competent authority in the country where recognition and enforcement
is sought finds that: (a) the subject matter of the difference is
not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of that
country”. Convention, art. V, § 2 (emphasis added).
As noted, “individuals seeking to avoid the enforcement of an
arbitration agreement face a high bar”, even when the claims at
issue are statutory. Carter, 362 F.3d at 297. In Gilmer, the
Supreme Court held federal statutory claims are subject to
arbitration unless the party resisting arbitration can show
“Congress intended to preclude a waiver of a judicial forum” for
resolution of the claims. 500 U.S. at 26. “If such an intention
exists, it will be discoverable in the text of the [statute], its
legislative history, or an ‘inherent conflict’ between arbitration
20
and the [statute’s] underlying purposes.” Id. The FLSA does not
preclude arbitration by its terms or legislative history. Carter,
362 F.3d at 297. Therefore, plaintiffs must demonstrate an
“inherent conflict” between arbitration and the purposes underlying
the FLSA. Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 26.
Instead of addressing “inherent conflict” directly, plaintiffs
maintain arbitration “serves no purpose” because their FLSA claims
are “rooted in United States law [and] are incapable of resolution
by foreign arbitration”. Without deciding whether plaintiffs’
claims are subject to the FLSA, see Haynsworth, 121 F.3d at 966, we
note that the NLRC, the Philippine body charged with arbitrating
employment claims under Standard Terms § 29, is statutorily
empowered to have “original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide ... the claims arising out of an employer-employee
relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino
workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages”. Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipino Act of 1995, Republic Act 8042, § 10 (2004) (Phil.)
( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) , a v a i l a b l e a t
http://www.poea.gov.ph/html/ra8042.html. There is no reason to
conclude the NLRC could not consider an action arising under the
FLSA, if that statute applies to plaintiffs’ claims.
21
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the dismissal-denial is VACATED and
this matter is REMANDED to district court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
VACATED and REMANDED
22