Cruise Ship Law

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In a Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688, case, plaintiff employee sued defendant foreign cruise line in state court for damages for injuries he allegedly sustained on a cruise ship. Following removal pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (Convention), 9 U.S.C.S. § 201-208, the cruise line moved to compel arbitration. The employee moved to remand.

OVERVIEW: The employee argued that removal was improper for six reasons. While the employment contract did not expressly include an arbitration agreement, the contract was an approved Philippines Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) contract that vested original and exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes under the contract with the POEA or the Philippine National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Since the NLRC was a body of labor arbitrators, arbitration was effectively mandated. The court rejected the assertion that the Convention did not apply to the employment contracts of seaman. Based on United States Supreme Court precedent, the court rejected the employee's argument that his employment contract was not a commercial contract. While the employee cited authority for the proposition that a foreign seaman could bring a Jones Act claim, he did not show that the claim could not be removed by a foreign company under the Convention. The arbitration agreement between the parties was valid under U.S. law. The contract was not one of adhesion and was valid under Philippine law. Finally, the court could not determine whether the agreement was enforceable under Philippine law.

OUTCOME: The employee's motion to remand was denied. The cruise line's motion to compel arbitration was granted. Any pending motions were denied as moot.