Oklahoma Court Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration of Air Traffic Controllers' FLSA Claims

The court denied the motion on May 12, finding that the collective bargaining agreement between Robinson Aviation and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association lacks the "clear and unmistakable" waiver of judicial forum rights required to force arbitration of Fair Labor Standards Act claims.

The suit, filed by Jeffrey Singles and other air traffic controllers, alleges the company violated Section 7(a) of the FLSA and Department of Labor regulations by paying overtime at a rate below the federal mandate.

Robinson Aviation argued that the CBA’s grievance procedure and references to "regulations affecting conditions of employment" incorporated the FLSA, thereby waiving the plaintiffs' right to a federal court.

The court rejected that interpretation, noting that the CBA’s only explicit reference to the FLSA appears in a section regarding tuition reimbursements for non-exempt employees, which does not constitute an incorporation of the statute into the arbitration framework.

"The Court can hardly characterize this as an express incorporation of the FLSA such that it constitutes a waiver of Plaintiffs' federal forum rights," the order states.

The court also dismissed arguments that the company’s Employee Handbook, which states overtime is paid in accordance with the FLSA, created a clear waiver. The court noted the defendant did not argue the handbook was incorporated into the CBA, and even if it were, the reference was too generic.

Citing the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Cloutier v. GoJet Airlines, LLC, the court emphasized that parties to a CBA must explicitly state which statutory claims they intend to confine to arbitration.

"It is neither unattainable nor unreasonable to expect parties to a collective bargaining agreement to clearly state those statutory claims that they intend to confine to arbitration," the court wrote, quoting Cloutier.

The court distinguished this case from those where waivers were found, such as 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, where the CBA specifically referenced anti-discrimination statutes and subjected those claims to the grievance procedure.

Here, the CBA’s definition of a grievance was ambiguous, with the court noting it could be interpreted to cover only contractual disputes or potentially statutory ones, but failing to make the intent "indubitable."

"Without a clear and unmistakable waiver, Plaintiffs are not required to arbitrate their FLSA claims," the order states.

The case remains in federal court for further proceedings on the collective action’s merits.