Appellant Ernesto Francisco, a Philippine national, was injured on a chemical tanker ship located on the Mississippi River. Francisco was employed aboard the M/T Stolt Achievement (the vessel), which was allegedly operated by Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group, Inc., (Stolt) a Liberian corporation.
Stolt's "Crewing Manager" submitted an affidavit attesting that when Stolt hires Philippine seamen, it must comply with employment contract requirements of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. Francisco signed such a contract. The contract contains lengthy provisions addressing employee compensation and benefits in the event of work-related injury, illness, or death. It provides in section 29 of the "Standard Terms and Conditions" that in the event of "claims and disputes arising from this employment," the parties agree to arbitrate their disputes in the Philippines.(1) Section 31 of the same document provides that "[a]ny unresolved dispute, claim or grievance arising out of or in connection with this Contract . . . shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, international conventions, treaties and covenants where the Philippines is a signatory."
Francisco sued Stolt in Louisiana state court, asserting claims under the Jones Act(2) and under general maritime law for unseaworthiness and for maintenance and cure. He alleged that suit in state court was authorized by the saving to suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1).
Stolt removed the case to federal district court, alleging that Francisco had signed an employment contract agreeing to arbitrate claims against Stolt in the Philippines, and that this agreement was subject to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the Convention),(3) a convention to which the United States and the Philippines are both signatories. The United States implemented the Convention in 1970 through the enactment of 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208 (hereinafter the Convention Act). Francisco filed a motion to remand the case to state court, and Stolt filed a motion to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 206. The district court denied the motion to remand, granted the motion to compel arbitration, and dismissed the suit. This appeal by Francisco followed.
No comments:
Post a Comment