This article analyzes what recent cases show about arbitrators’ tendencies in the area of back pay awards. It also highlights some of the more interesting awards and offers a few observations on how an arbitrator can minimize ambiguities which can embroil the parties in further disputes over interpretations of back pay awards.
Frequently, we read an assertion that “most arbitrators” deal with an issue in a certain manner. Far less frequently do we read the writer’s basis for this assertion.1 Has the writer read three cases, two of which support the proposition? Or is it the writer’s own view, supported only by the fervent belief that most other right thinkers must agree?