In Opalinski v Robert Half Intern., Inc., (D.N.J. Dec. 3, 2012), employees of Robert Half sued their employer, alleging that they were misclassified as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime requirements. Robert Half moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the plaintiffs' employment agreement. The court compelled arbitration and instructed the arbitrator to consider the issue of whether class arbitration was permitted because the arbitration clause did not expressly allow or disallow class arbitration.

The arbitrator concluded that class arbitration was permitted under the employment agreement. Robert Half objected and sought to vacate the award by arguing that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by holding that the agreement permitted class arbitration. In particular, Robert Half argued that the arbitrator's finding violated the Supreme Court precedent established in Stolt–Nielsen v Animal Feeds Int'l Corp., 176 L.Ed.2d 605 (2010), which concluded that an arbitration panel had exceeded its powers by imposing its own policy choice through the authorisation of class arbitration, instead of interpreting and applying the agreement of the parties (see Legal update, Supreme Court rules class arbitration is unavailable when agreement is silent).

The District Court was unpersuaded, in light of the recent Third Circuit case Sutter v Oxford Health Plans LLC, 675 F.3d 215 (3d Cir.2012). In Sutter, the Third Circuit explained that Stolt-Nielsen allows the interpretation of arbitration clauses to permit class arbitration, even if the clauses do not expressly provide for it, if an arbitration tribunal articulates a contractual basis for such an interpretation (see Legal update, Third Circuit finds arbitrator did not exceed his power when construing the parties' arbitration agreement to allow class arbitration).

The District Court stressed that on review of an arbitral award, if the arbitrator's interpretation is in any rational way derived from the agreement, the arbitration award will not be disturbed, particularly for labour disputes. The District Court emphasised that the arbitrator had interpreted the employment agreement using New Jersey contract interpretation principles and issued a well-reasoned decision articulating a contractual basis for her interpretation that the agreement implicitly authorised class arbitration. The arbitrator had found that the broad language of the Agreements (providing that "any dispute or claim" must be arbitrated) could only be construed as allowing class proceedings. The District Court concluded that the arbitrator had not exceeded her powers, because she had provided ample support for her findings in the award. Accordingly, Robert Half's petition for vacating the arbitration award was dismissed.

This case demonstrates the significant deference offered to well-reasoned arbitration awards. More specifically, this case reinforces the arbitrator's autonomy in interpreting the will of the parties; particularly on the question of consent to class arbitration.