Limiting Arbitration Impairs CUs’ Ability to Solve Member Disputes

Credit unions have a proven track record of protecting interests of their members, because they are the owners too, CUNA wrote to House leadership this week, and the hallmark of any member-owned institution is establishing a dispute resolution process. CUNA wrote to oppose a bill (H.R. 1423) on the House floor that would prohibit the use of a pre-dispute arbitration agreement.

“Legislation that arbitrarily restricts the availability of arbitration to resolve disputes impairs credit union members’ ability to efficiently resolve disputes,” the letter reads. “Credit unions are less likely to have or to enforce arbitration clauses than many others in the financial services marketplace.  They frequently work with members to refund erroneous fees, establish flexible payment options, and find other solutions to resolve a legitimate dispute.  In short, when a credit union member makes a credit union aware of an issue, they are very likely to see the matter resolved without intervention of arbitration or litigation.”

The letter notes that credit unions include arbitration as part of their contracts to “protect membership from the frivolous costs of class action suits that, in the case of a credit union, place the member-owners in position of having to sue themselves.”

The measure has 222 cosponsors including the eleven Democratic members of the New Jersey delegation.