Parties must explicitly agree to court review of arbitration award's accuracy

As part of a routine handbook acknowledgment, an employer and its employee entered into a binding arbitration agreement. Unhappy with the outcome after arbitrating an employment dispute, the employee appealed, asking the California Court of Appeal to review the arbitrator's decision. In an unpublished opinion issued on February 26, 2020, the court ruled that the parties didn't bargain for expanded judicial review, and the employee wasn't entitled to review of the award even if the arbitrator reached erroneous conclusions on a contested issue of law or fact.

Even a typical arbitration agreement can be problematic

Lawrence Equipment, Inc., is a machine manufacturing company based in Los Angeles. Julian Rodriguez began working for Lawrence as an hourly machine operator in April 1999. Generally, he worked from 6:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m., five or six days a week. Lawrence requires its employees to take a 20-minute paid rest break at 10:00 a.m. and a 40-minute break at 1:00 p.m. that includes a 30-minute unpaid meal break and a 10-minute paid rest break. The company prohibits employees from taking their breaks at any other times.

In July 2014, Rodriguez signed an acknowledgment that he had received a handbook containing an arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement included a provision allowing the parties to obtain limited judicial review of any arbitration award. A new employee manual containing a revised arbitration agreement was issued in July 2015. Rodriguez never acknowledged receipt of the new manual or signed the revised arbitration agreement.