Labor Arbitration

Introduction and Statement of Purpose

The effects of arbitrators' and grievants' characteristics in the labor arbitration environment have been the focus of any number of research studies (Caudill, Oswald, & Bemmells, 1992). Ideally (and perhaps optimistically), a labor arbitrator is required to make decisions in all cases without superimposing his or her own beliefs, values, mores, and norms upon the case, the evidence for or against the grievant or respondent, or the outcome of the arbitration process. The literature on arbitrators' and their decision-making process, which will be examined in this report, tends to suggest that this ideal may not be at work universally. Crow, Stephens, and Sharp (1992), for example, stated that we know relatively little about what goes on in the mind of arbitrators, even though such issues seem essential since they determine whether a party wins or loses. Most studies of arbitration, until recently, have focused on the applicable law or the various procedural rules that shape the entire arbitration process.

It seems, according to Crow, et al. (1992), more important to examine and analyze why and how arbitrators make up their minds, particularly in the context of cases that involve workplace charges of drug and/or alcohol use. Such cases are among the most complex and contentious confronting contemporary

. . .
arly study suggests is that arbitrators involved in drug and alcohol workplace cases were as of 1992, remarkably consistent and free of bias in their decision-making (Crow, et al., 1992). Nothing in the literature at that time indicated to Crow, et al. (1992) that arbitrators are biased for management in disciplinary cases. However, management does win more arbitration cases than do unions and their members. It is possible that management wins more frequently because of a competitive advantage and greater resources for arbitration. The findings of this study were significant because they suggest consistent actions across a large group of arbitrators with respect to their rationale for making an award. Crow, Fok, and Hartman (1994) revisited this question two years after the study described above. In this meta analysis, the researchers used an additional 226 arbitration cases published by the Bureau of National Affairs and the Commerce Clearing House to examine the impact of drug testing on the arbitral decision-making process. Noting that unionized workers are heavily subject to drug testing, Crow, et al. (1994) theorized that some organizations may have moved to drug testing at least in part because of hopes to f
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Stephens Sharp, Bohlander Blancero, Clearing House, Jennings Allen, Hall Waters, Summary Conclusion, Percent Proper, Crow Logan, District Court, Arbitration Drug/Alcohol, drug testing, labor arbitrators, et al, crow et, crow et al, drug alcohol, labor arbitration, drug tests, illicit drug, et al 1992, alcohol drug, al 1994, et al 1994, american arbitration association, hall waters 2001,
Approximate Word count = 5425
Approximate Pages = 22 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Labor Arbitration