Although in the Italian Colors case itself it is a dispute which has been denounced by traders, the majority`s decision has important consequences for employment matters. By narrowing the doctrine of effective justification, the Tribunal may have undermined the challenge to class action waivers in arbitration clauses. In other words, just as AT&T Mobility has eliminated most of the challenges of scruples against unfair arbitration agreements for pre-emptive reasons, Italian Colors threatens to eliminate most of the challenges posed on the basis of the doctrine of effective justification. And in this regard, Italian Colors suggests that trends in arbitral law could mean the destruction of the legal protection of class actions, which has been at the center of labor law for more than 60 years.28 Then, in 1984, at Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984), the High Court rejected the view that the FAA applied only to cases before the federal courts. On the contrary, the Court decided that the FAA would also apply to contract disputes in state courts as long as the dispute concerned intergovernmental commerce. The Southland decision was a substantial extension of the scope of the Statute. In addition, despite direct evidence in the FAA`s legislative history and despite the language of SECTION 2 of the FAA, which has maintained the role of state law in regulating arbitration, the majority of the Supreme Court has ruled that the statute anticipates all state laws with which it conflicts. Subsequently, all efforts by the state to regulate arbitration would be restricted by the FAA7 Due to its nature, the subject matter of certain disputes is not subject to dispute.
In principle, two groups of judicial proceedings cannot be the subject of arbitration proceedings: arbitral law is a dynamic legal field. Since, in many cases, Supreme Court decisions have made arbitration the only forum available for dispute resolution, the specific details of arbitration procedures need to be clarified. As a result, the number of cases continues to rise and new problems are constantly arising. However, the trends are clear: courts will not allow states to reduce arbitration and they will impose arbitration agreements in all but the rarest cases, regardless of the advantage they give to the strongest parties. In view of these rulings, it is not surprising that the use of arbitration tribunals by private sector companies and employers has increased significantly. 4. 9 U.S.C§ 3. To be part of the FAA, an agreement must include trade and contain a written arbitration clause.
9 U.S.C§ 2. . . .