In actuality, the decision taken by the District Court is challenged by the WRC but the appeal of the WRC is unreasonable. The WRC does not want to accept Smith and include him in the arbitrary agreement. Naturally, such a position of the WRC is quite logical because the company attempts to protect its interests. However, from the legal standpoint, the decision of the WRC is unreasonable because the company has little chances to win the case, whereas Smith has good chances to win the case.
At this point, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that the written agreement is crucial for settling cases. However, it does not necessarily mean that there could be no oral agreements in the course of negotiation and settlement of cases involving disputes between parties. The written form of agreement is essential that means that Smith had to sign the arbitrary agreement.
Nevertheless, some changes may be introduced in the agreement being made orally but these changes are valid as long as parties are still in the course of negotiations. Otherwise, oral changes are not valid, if they not finally shaped in the written form. This means that Smith could negotiate his inclusion in the arbitrary agreement.
In this regard, Smith should be included in the arbitrary agreement on the ground of the court’s decision as the court performs the function of conciliator in the case involving Smith and the WRC. The District court ruled that Smith has to be included in the arbitrary agreement and the decision of the court may be viewed as a conciliator’s oral change that should be introduced in the case.
In fact, this means that Smith should be included in the arbitrary agreement on the ground of the district court’s decision because the district court performed functions of the conciliator and, therefore, the court had the legal right to introduce changes in the arbitrary agreement and the court’s ruling justifies the oral agreement and grants the oral agreement with the power of the written agreement. At this point, it is also necessary to take into consideration the fact that, while other employees signed the arbitrary agreement, Smith case was in the court. Therefore, the district court just granted Smith with an opportunity to sign the arbitrary agreement just like other employees have already done.