Labor Arbitration and Dispute Resolution

Abstract

There is a widespread perception that our judicial system needs changing. It is expensive, unnecessarily technical, intrusive on private relations, and it gives unfair advantage to the wealthy and powerful. Labor arbitration, by contrast, is frequently pointed to as the paradigm of private justice. It is understandable that labor arbitration is widely admired. When it functions properly it achieves in an impressive fashion the goals by which any system of dispute resolution should be measured. These are: (1) Finality. Once decided, are cases likely to be retried or appealed? (2) Obedience. Are the decisions put into effect or are they rendered meaningless by subsequent refusals to carry them out? (3) Guidance. Do the decisions provide necessary guidance to the parties involved in the dispute? Can they subsequently structure behavior in a reasonable fashion and avoid future litigation? (4) Efficiency. Are the majority of disputes settled without a formal hearing? When cases are tried, are the procedures adequate, flexible, and suited to the particular issue? Are the benefits achieved from the system economical compared to the costs? (5) Availability. Is the dispute-resolution machinery routinely available without undue expense to people whose behavior is governed by the system, and are they provided with adequate representation? (6) Neutrality. Do the decision makers avoid favoritism and bias for one side or another? (7) Conflict Reduction. Does the entire process, including the adjudication, lead to more amicable relations and contribute to mutual respect among the potential disputants? (8) Fairness. Will the disputes be resolved in a way that appropriately recognizes the interests of the various parties likely to come before the system?