The funny thing is, I could see an excellent argument for something like nonunion DUBO deferral-- i.e., where an employer and employee have entered into a bona fide, uncoerced, post-dispute arbitration agreement (or the employee knowingly and voluntarily invokes a pre-dispute arbitration agreement) that specifically authorizes the arbitrator to decide issues that would otherwise have to be litigated before the NLRB, the Board might think it valid to honor the ensuing decision. I could see some employees validly preferring not to have to litigate different claims in different forums, particularly given the endless appeals-on-appeals-on-appeals that are characteristic of the NLRB process.
The idea, however, that employees ought to be strongarmed into arbitration via an analogy to Collyer deferral-- when they may not have a lawyer or other means by which to properly pursue arbitration-- is grotesque.
The funny thing is, I could see an excellent argument for something like nonunion DUBO deferral-- i.e., where an employer and employee have entered into a bona fide, uncoerced, post-dispute arbitration agreement (or the employee knowingly and voluntarily invokes a pre-dispute arbitration agreement) that specifically authorizes the arbitrator to decide issues that would otherwise have to be litigated before the NLRB, the Board might think it valid to honor the ensuing decision. I could see some employees validly preferring not to have to litigate different claims in different forums, particularly given the endless appeals-on-appeals-on-appeals that are characteristic of the NLRB process.
The idea, however, that employees ought to be strongarmed into arbitration via an analogy to Collyer deferral-- when they may not have a lawyer or other means by which to properly pursue arbitration-- is grotesque.