Associate Professor of Law, University of Michigan. B.S. 1962, Cornell University; J.D. 1965, University of Michigan. Formerly associated with the Chicago law firm of Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson.
In 1961, R. W. Fleming wrote that, "in the last five years shop talk among arbitrators has tended increasingly to drift into an area vaguely and uneasily identified as 'due process.' "^ Since the time of Professor Fleming's fateful prognostication, many more arbitrators have lustily waded into the sea of "due process" and have endeavored to give it a meaning and application in the context of labor arbitration. However, most arbitrators are still concerned that a carte blanche application of the strictures of "due process" in an industrial relations setting would produce overly legalistic and wholly unsatisfactory results.^ This concern was sharply emphasized by Willard Wirtz in his paper, "Due Process of Arbitration."^ As Professor Wirtz noted, " 'due process' is a symbol borrowed from the lexicon of law, and therefore suspect in this shirtsleeves . . . business of arbitration."* He further observed that: