The NLRB’s Unfair Labor Practice Settlement Program - Dispute Resolution Journal - Vol. 59, No. 4
Lamont Stallworth is a professor at the Institute of Human Resources and Industrial Relations at Loyola University in Chicago. He is also the founder and chair of the Center for Employment Dispute Resolution.
Arup Varma is the director of, and an associate professor at, the Institute of Human Resources and Industrial Relations, at Loyola University. John T. Delaney is associate dean and a professor at the Eli Broad College of Business at Michigan State University.
The authors would like to thank Professor William B. Gould IV, former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board (1994-98), and the Charles A. Beardsley Professor of Law, emeritus, at Stanford University School of Law; and the following NLRB officials: Executive Secretary John J. Toner; Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi; Associate General Counsel Richard A. Seigel; and other NLRB officials who supported this project. The authors also wish to thank the many administrative law judges, and management and union disputants who responded to their survey. They would also like to thank the Center for Employment Dispute Resolution, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, and the University of Iowa, for partially funding this study. The opinions and conclusions of this study are solely those of the authors and should not be attributed to any other person or organization.
Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal
This article examines participant satisfaction with the National Labor Relations Board’s Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) Settlement Program, which was instituted in order to speed up the resolution of ULP disputes between unions and employers. Under this program an NLRB judge, who is not the trial judge, facilitates settlement conferences involving employers and labor organizations that are parties to a ULP dispute. The authors’ survey found that Individuals who participated in the ULP Settlement Program held generally positive views about that experience. Based on their findings, the authors conclude that the program seems successful on all evaluative dimensions, and could be expected to have beneficial results if expanded to other types of disputes.