Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Omaha Steve

(103,574 posts)
Sat Apr 20, 2024, 12:05 PM Apr 2024

Labor News & Commentary April 15, 2024 SCOTUS ruled in favor of bakery delivery drivers in an exemption from mandatory..


https://onlabor.org/april-15-2024/

By Elyse Weissberger

In today’s News and Commentary, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of bakery delivery drivers in an exemption from mandatory arbitration case and a Teamsters Local ends its 18-month strike by accepting settlement payments and agreeing to dissolve.

Last Friday, the Supreme Court unanimously held in favor of bakery delivery drivers, ruling that the drivers are transportation workers exempted from mandatory arbitration by Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. asked the Court to interpret, yet again, the class of workers the FAA intended to exempt. The workers are delivery truck drivers for Flower Foods, the second-largest producer and marketer of packaged bakery foods in the U.S., according to the company’s website. Flower Foods is the parent company of Wonder Bread and Dave’s Killer Bread, among other brands. In 2019, the delivery truck drivers sued Flower Foods alleging that the company violated state and federal wage laws. Flower Foods moved to compel arbitration. For more details about the case’s procedural history and the parties’ briefs, read Gwen’s post. The company argued that the FAA exempts only workers in the transportation industry, not workers in other industries who happen to transport, load, or unload goods. Flower Foods, the company argued, is in the baking industry, thus their delivery drivers are not exempted by Section 1. The Court rejected this argument, suggesting that a reading of the Act that defines the exemption on an industrywide basis would be rather “strange.” It is not yet clear how impactful this decision will be on limiting mandatory arbitration – as Andrew noted, this was an easy case and the Court’s decision appears to be a plain interpretation of the Act.

FULL story at link above.


Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Omaha Steve's Labor Group»Labor News & Commentary A...