NCJ Number
96046
Journal
Labor Law Journal Volume: 34 Issue: 11 Dated: (November 1983) Pages: 714-726
Date Published
1984
Length
13 pages
Annotation
This article examines the balance between strict construction and common law principles in arbitrators' decisions and the lasting consequences of decisions for management and the administration of collective agreements.
Abstract
Field interviews were conducted with 50 management and union staff representatives in 4 industries (airlines, chemicals, basic steel, and utilities) to determine whether arbitrators would adhere to a strict construction of agreement terms or whether they would venture into common law interpretations using some abstract notion of industrial justice. The respondents identified specific arbitration decisions that had had a significant impact on the administration of the collective agreement and discussed and evaluated the influence of these decisions on managerial practices. A total of 95 decisions were collected, covering 6 areas: work assignments, compensation, overtime, subcontracting, scheduling, and promotion and transfer. Most frequently, arbitrators were found to have been asked to apply general contractual provisions to particular, though often recurrent, factual situations. In other instances, decisions were seen to have stemmed from contractual silence, ambiguous or internally contradictory language, or alleged conflicts between contract provisions and past practices. Generally, arbitrators were found to have adhered to strict construction of disputed provisions. Arbitrators' decisions commonly provided guidance to the parties in administering agreement provisions and a basis for avoiding subsequent conflict. Management respondents did not raise any serious reservations about the rationales or consequences of arbitrators' decisions. A total of 17 footnotes are supplied.