Labor Arbitration: An Investigation of Trends in Arbitrators' Values in Cases Involving Workplace
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 labor arbitrators, especially in light of the emphasis on mandatory, randomized drug and alcohol testing and screening that ahs emerged as business managers have become more aware of the prevalence of these problems (Drug tests reducea, 2000). In the past 15 or so years, drug testing (and, to a lesser degree, alcohol screening). In 1983, less than 1 percent of American workers were subject to drug testing; today, there are few industrial segments and other sectors that do not have some form ...