Opinion ID: 3039593
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Waiver of Judicial Forum.

Text: Hilinski contends that the district court erred in concluding that he waived his right to a judicial forum in favor of arbitration under the CBA. The Federal Arbitration Act provides that written contracts to settle controversies arising from the parties’ contractual relationship “shall be valid, irrevocable and 3 enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity. . . .” 9 U.S.C. § 2; see also Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 470 U.S. 213, 221 (1985). However, before compelling arbitration, a court must engage in a limited inquiry to ensure “that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and that the specific dispute falls within the substantive scope of the agreement.” PaineWebber, Inc. v. Hartmann, 921 F.2d 507, 511 (3d Cir. 1990). The existence vel non of an agreement to arbitrate is governed by state law principles governing contracts. See Gruntal & Co., Inc. v. Steinberg, 854 F. Supp. 324, 334 (D.N.J. 1994) (citations omitted), aff’d, 46 F.3d 1116 (3d Cir. 1994) (Table). Under New Jersey law, the court must determine: (1) whether the waiver provision shows a clear intent to arbitrate a statutory claim and (2) whether Hilinski agreed to the provision. Leodori v. CIGNA Corp., 814 A.2d 1098, 1105 (N.J. 2003). Here, Hilinski accepted membership in the Union which, through collective bargaining, consented to the terms of the CBA specifically requiring arbitration of any disputes regarding absenteeism. Safrit v. Cone Mills Corp., 248 F.3d 306, 308 (4th Cir. 2001) (the right to arbitrate is a term or condition of employment that a union may bargain for and that a union may validly waive employees’ statutory rights to a judicial forum). Furthermore, Hilinski acknowledged that the dispute is arbitrable by voluntarily invoking the arbitration process. See Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Wks. Lodge 1777 v. Fansteel, Inc., 900 F.2d 1005, 1009 (7th Cir. 1990) (“The party initiating arbitration has made a decision that the dispute is arbitrable when it initiates an arbitration proceeding.”). 4 Statutory claims are no exception to this general rule. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 26-30 (1991) (finding federal age discrimination claim properly subject to compulsory arbitration pursuant to arbitration agreement; noting also that party does not forgo substantive statutory rights, he only submits their resolution in an arbitral rather than a judicial forum); Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001) (concluding same for state employment discrimination claims). Here, Hilinski, through the Union, advised Gordon Terminal that he was submitting the propriety of his discharge to arbitration. Thereafter, he voluntarily participated in the process of selecting an arbitrator, appeared at the arbitration represented by Union counsel, presented evidence, cross-examined witnesses and rebutted the position taken by Gordon Terminal. He did so without attempting to reserve any alleged statutory rights to a judicial forum.3 Furthermore, both during arbitration, and in his post-hearing brief, Hilinski voluntarily submitted his claim that several of his absences were excused or protected under the FMLA, the NJLAD, the NJFLA and/or the WCA, to the arbitrator. Although Hilinski is no doubt disappointed with the result of arbitration, under the circumstances here, he can not now resolve his dispute in a judicial forum.