Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

There has now been a decade of experience with interest arbitration under the New York City Collective Bargaining Law (NYCCBL), which is provided for about 200,000 city employees covered by the statute. The NYCCBL stipulates that an impasse panel (interest arbitration board) shall first attempt to mediate a dispute and, only if that effort fails, will it hold hearings and issue a final and binding award. The panel must take into consideration the criteria mandated by the statute and must specify the basis for its award.

Experience under the NYCCBL demonstrates that, contrary to the claims of critics, impasse procedures have not had a "chilling effect" on the collective bargaining process. Only 8.4 percent of reported contract settlements have used the procedure. In addition, the number of strikes occurring in New York City since the enactment of a final and binding arbitration law in 1972 has been very low, with only three strikes over new contract terms. Only one-fourth of all interest arbitration awards have been appealed to the Board of Collective Bargaining and an even smaller number has been appealed to the courts, none successfully.

The author believes that interest arbitration has worked well in New York City because the parties have been committed to the process as a supplement to, not a substitute for, collective bargaining. He contends that while there can be no absolute guarantee against strikes in a free society, by using interest arbitration, the power of persuasion can be used rather than the persuasion of power toward the resolution of public sector bargaining impasses.