Opinion ID: 3048411
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lindo’s Employment Contract

Text: Lindo’s employment with NCL was governed by (1) a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) negotiated by NCL and the Norwegian Seafarers’ Union, and (2) an employment contract (the “Contract”), which Lindo executed in January 2008. Lindo’s Contract provides that the “[e]mployee and the employment relationship established hereunder shall at all times be subject to and governed by the CBA.” Lindo’s Contract also provides that, notwithstanding whether he is a union member, he “understands and agrees that with respect to the Employer’s obligations under general maritime law in the event of injury or illness, the terms of the CBA control and the Employee will be provided with benefits, including 2 At oral argument, Lindo’s counsel stated his understanding that NCL’s private island was located in the Bahamas. 3 unearned wages, maintenance, cure and medical care and will be compensated in accordance with said CBA.” Lindo’s Contract “acknowledges that he[] has had an opportunity to review said CBA.” Paragraph 12 of Lindo’s Contract specifies that all Jones Act claims will be resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to the United Nations Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“the New York Convention” or “the Convention”): Seaman agrees . . . that any and all claims . . . relating to or in any way connected with the Seaman’s shipboard employment with Company including . . . claims such as personal injuries [and] Jones Act claims . . . shall be referred to and resolved exclusively by binding arbitration pursuant to the United Nations Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards . . . . The Convention requires courts in signatory nations to give effect to private international arbitration agreements and to recognize and enforce arbitral awards entered in other contracting states. See The United Nations Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S. 3. The CBA likewise provides that Jones Act claims will be resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to the Convention. As to the place of arbitration, Lindo’s Contract states that “[t]he place of the arbitration shall be the Seaman’s country of citizenship, unless arbitration is 4 unavailable under The Convention in that country, in which case, and only in that case, said arbitration shall take place in Nassau, Bahamas.” As to the choice of law, Lindo’s Contract provides, “The substantive law to be applied to the arbitration shall be the law of the flag state of the vessel.” This entailed that any claim, including Lindo’s Jones Act claim, would be arbitrated in Nicaragua (Lindo’s country of citizenship) under Bahamian law (the law of the flag state of the vessel).3 Lindo does not challenge the place of arbitration. Rather, Lindo challenges having arbitration at all because Bahamian negligence law, not U.S. statutory negligence law under the Jones Act,4 would apply.