Mandatory arbitration is not just a theoretical restriction on workers` and consumers` rights; it has a significant practical impact on the ability of workers and consumers to exercise their rights and succeed. Overall, the questions that will be asked by the courts about an arbitration agreement can be categorized into two categories: substantive scruples and selfishness. All of these elements are explained in more detail below. It is unlikely that an agreement will be set aside unless a court decides that it is unacceptable both materially and procedurally. Although the Italian Colors case itself contained litigation brought by merchants, the majority`s decision has a significant impact on employment cases. By limiting the doctrine of effective justification, the Court of Justice has potentially undermined the challenges posed by class remedies in arbitration clauses. In other words, just as AT-T Mobility has rejected most of the unscrupulous challenges to unfair arbitration agreements for prevention reasons, Italian Colors risks eliminating most of the challenges posed by the doctrine of effective justification. And Italian colours suggest that trends in arbitration law may signal the destruction of legal protection for collective germs, 28 A 1992 survey on the use of dispute resolution procedures showed that only 2.1% of employers surveyed used compulsory arbitration.37 In comparison, A 1995 GAO survey of 1,448 entities submitted to the Federal Office for Contract Enforcement (OF) found that only 2.1% of employers surveyed obligatory arbitration. 38 more recently, a 2003 survey of 291 employers in the telecommunications sector, one of us (Colvin) found that 14.1 per cent had adopted mandatory arbitration.39 Since employers who accepted larger organizations, 22.7 per cent of non-union workers in organizations were covered by mandatory arbitration. In this survey, the focus was on procedures for lower-level employees in the industry, such as employees.
B customer service or technicians. The result differential in the mandatory arbitration process has a significant and detrimental effect on the ability to obtain counsel`s assistance in these potential pricing agreements. Counsel for the applicants, who accepts labour matters, knows that he or she will lose some of the cases and will not collect any costs for them, while he receives a royalty on the basis of the damages awarded in the successful cases. As a result, lawyers decide whether to accept a case based on their judgment on the likely outcome. But as we have seen, the average outcome for mandatory arbitration proceedings is much lower than for litigation: damages resulting from arbitration account for 16 per cent of the average damage caused by federal litigation and only 7 per cent of the average damage in the State Court.