Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

Preview Page

"In view of the plain desire of management and representatives to have their differences conclusively resolved through the arbitration process, it is highly desirable that arbitration be self-disciplining, thus promoting respect for this process and narrowing the situations in which resort is had to courts to set aside, modify, or enforce awards."

This statement is quoted from the Code of Ethics and Procedural Standards for Labor-Management Arbitration issued in 1950 under the combined auspices of the National Academy .of Arbitration, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and the American Arbitration Association. I can think of no better text from which to start a discussion of arbitration and its critics.

When arbitration of disputes arising under a labor contact first began to take hold, the contracts which had to be interpreted were typically short and rudimentary; the language they contained was often couched in very general terms. The arbitrator called in on these disputes was often expected to fill many roles: philosopher, peacemaker, innovator, and finally, and perhaps least of all, judicial interpreter of the language. Today, labor contracts are lengthy documents, with every conceivable situation covered, and with a long background of both legislative and judicial battles over the language. Even the arbitration clause itself is apt to run many pages, attempting to define both the duties and the limitations of the arbitrator's function.