EnglishIS AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN A JONES ACT EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT ENFORCEABLE?
Published: 10 July 2025
The United States District Court of Massachusetts recently granted a motion to dismiss, thus allowing an arbitrator in a personal injury dispute to rule on the enforceability of an arbitration clause contained in a seaman’s employment contract.
The Plaintiff seafarer had sustained an injury while working onboard a commercial fishing vessel owned by the Defendant, his employer. The seafarer filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Massachusetts asserting claims against the shipowner for negligence, vessel unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure. The shipowner sought to dismiss the lawsuit and compel arbitration based on the terms of the seafarer’s employment contract.
All crew members, including the Plaintiff, signed employment contracts at the start of each fishing voyage containing the following term:
“…I understand and agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of my work as a crew member, including but not limited to statutory Jones Act claims, negligence, unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, and wage claims, and whether such claim or controversy be brought against the vessel, vessel owner[s] or vessel operator/employer, or any combination of them; or disputes relating to this Agreement, or the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof, including the determination of the scope or applicability of this arbitration clause, shall be determined by one arbitrator sitting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The arbitration shall be administered by JAMS pursuant to its Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures. If this agreement to arbitrate is determined to be exempt from enforcement under the Federal Arbitration Act, the laws of the State of New York shall be applied in determining the validity and enforceability of this agreement…”
Both parties accepted that the Federal Arbitration Act did not apply to the contract, citing the exception for contracts of employment for seafarers and railroad employees. However, the shipowner argued that this should not render the employment contract unenforceable but instead was a question of enforceability for the Arbitrator, who should apply the laws of the State of New York. The court agreed, thereby granting the employer’s motion to dismiss. The matter then went before the Arbitrator.
The Arbitrator reviewed the employment contract, including the above clause, and ruled that the parties had entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement, and that the seafarer’s claims fell within the scope of the contact. The Arbitrator held that the arbitration should be administered under JAMS rules, which expressly reserve the authority to resolve the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. The Arbitrator also agreed that New York law should be applied. Pursuant to New York law, the parties to an arbitration agreement must clearly and unmistakably delegate the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator and not violate public policy.
The Arbitrator found that the public policy favouring freedom of the parties to contract outweighed any notion in the seafarer’s favour under the ward of admiralty doctrine, that public policy considerations did not preclude enforcement of the arbitration agreement, and that unconscionability and uniformity considerations did not render the arbitration agreement unenforceable under New York law. On that basis, the Arbitrator granted the employer’s application to compel arbitration.
The arbitration subsequently proceeded and the Arbitrator decided the injury dispute in the employer’s favour.
Members may wish to consider adopting the wording of the above arbitration clause in their crew employment contracts in order to streamline the resolution process and reduce legal costs.
BACK TO KNOWLEDGE