Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

Preview Page

 

A distinctive feature of labor-management relations in U.S. private industry under the National Labor Relations Act is the establishment of grievance arbitration and no-strike provisions in collective bargaining agreements. In this arrangement management agrees to arbitrate grievances arising under the contract, which ensures that disputes over the interpretation and application of its terms can be submitted to a neutral third party for a final, binding decision. Labor, for its part, agrees not to strike during the time the contract is ineffect, doing so because it has an equitable procedure for resolving disputes under the contract and therefore does not need to strike to achieve fair enforcement of terms. Contractual obligation to arbitrate thus provides an alternative to use of the strike weapon as a contract enforcement mechanism. When the agreement expires the union's strike right is re-effectuated, giving it necessary power to achieve a favorable replacement contract through negotiation.

Arbitration and no-strike agreements have worked out well over many years in the private sector by reducing strikes and providing an equitable system of industrial jurisprudence. Given this success, it is worth considering whether and to what extent they have relevance to public employment. This article examines the use of the grievance arbitration and no-strike model in the public sector.