## Facts

- Georgina Cheng–Canindin worked for the Parc Fifty Five Hotel in its human resources department.
- In February 1987, she signed a handbook receipt stating she would read and follow the handbook and “resolve all disputes concerning [her] employment” through the handbook procedures.
- The handbook described an “Internal Problem Solving Procedure” as part of an open communication policy the hotel “encourage[d]” employees to use.
- The procedure culminated in a Review Committee composed of hotel personnel; the general manager had influence over the process, including participation and testimony.
- The handbook stated the Review Committee would reach a “binding” decision by majority vote.
- After Cheng–Canindin sued for wrongful termination, the hotel owners/management sought to compel “mandatory contractual arbitration” through the Review Committee and to stay the court action.
- The trial court denied the petition to compel arbitration.

## Issues

1. Whether the handbook receipt and internal problem-solving procedure created a valid, enforceable agreement requiring arbitration of employment disputes in lieu of court.
2. Whether describing an internal Review Committee decision as “binding” established a knowing waiver of judicial remedies sufficient to compel arbitration.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying the petition to compel arbitration.
- The court held there was no clear, mutual agreement to arbitrate or to waive access to a judicial forum.
- The internal Review Committee process was treated as an internal grievance mechanism rather than enforceable contractual arbitration.

## Legal Principles

- Arbitration requires clear mutual assent; courts will not infer an agreement to arbitrate from ambiguous language, particularly where arbitration would waive the right to a jury trial.
- General statements that disputes will be handled by handbook “procedures,” without explicit arbitration terms or clear notice of waiver of court rights, do not form an enforceable arbitration agreement.
- Labeling an internal decision “binding,” viewed in context, does not by itself convert an employer’s grievance process into arbitration.
- The structure and control of the decisionmaker matter; an internal committee made up of employer personnel and subject to managerial influence may indicate a non-arbitral grievance process rather than a neutral arbitral forum.
- An employee’s waiver of a judicial forum in the employment context must be knowing and voluntary, supported by clear language making arbitration the exclusive dispute-resolution method.

## Conclusion

The court refused to compel arbitration because the employee handbook and acknowledgment did not clearly establish an agreement to arbitrate or an intentional waiver of court access; the hotel’s “binding” Review Committee procedure functioned as an internal grievance process, not enforceable arbitration.


Cheng-Canindin v. Renaissance Hotel Assocs., 50 Cal. App. 4th 676, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 867 (Ct. App. 1996)