Chuck Grassley: “the Fair Contracts for Growers Act of 2003 would simply give farmers a choice of venues to resolve disputes associated…”

“the Fair Contracts for Growers Act of 2003 would simply give farmers a choice of venues to resolve disputes associated with agricultural contracts. This legislation would not prohibit arbitration. Instead, it would ensure that the decision to arbitrate is truly voluntary and that the rights and remedies provided for by our judicial system are not waived under coercion. I certainly recognize that arbitration has its benefits. In certain cases, it can be less costly than other dispute settlement means. In certain other cases, it can remove some of the workload from our nation's overburdened court system. For these reasons, arbitration must be an option--but it should be no more than an option. Mandatory arbitration clauses are used in a growing number of agricultural contracts between individual farmers and processors. These provisions limit a farmer's ability to resolve a dispute with the company, even when a violation of Federal and State law is suspected. Rather than having the option to pursue a claim in court, disputes are required to go through an arbitration process that puts the farmer at a severe disadvantage. Such disputes often involve instances of discrimination, fraud, or negligent misrepresentation.”