NCJ Number
95968
Journal
Labor Law Journal Volume: 35 Issue: 3 Dated: (March 1984) Pages: 182-188
Date Published
1984
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This discussion examines the relation between courts and arbitration when arbitration is legislatively imposed on the parties.
Abstract
There is an important distinction between legislatively imposed and compulsory arbitration. One party (or both) must demand arbitration before proceedings are initiated under legislatively imposed arbitration, but under a compulsory arbitration statute, a third party can compel the parties to arbitrate their dispute, even if both parties object. Under legislatively imposed arbitration, the initiation process is typically identical to that in voluntarily negotiated arbitration clauses. The significance of the two cases reviewed -- the Rockville Training Center case and Chapter 279 of the Code of Iowa (1981) -- lies in the fact that two States chose to negate employee rights to arbitration in favor of lengthy court litigation in Iowa and simple denial of the right to arbitrate in Indiana. In themselves, the cases are of little consequence for the overall conduct of collective bargaining or arbitration in those labor-management relations governed by the Taft-Hartley Act. If the examples set in these two States prove to be a general trend in public employment in other States, a double standard will have been established. State employees will be in an inferior position compared to private-sector and Federal workers in the enforcement of their contractual rights and the settlement of disputes arising out of contract administration. Private-sector employees are guaranteed that their arbitration process will remain secure from assault by State courts and legislatures. In Indiana and Iowa, these same rights are being denied. Fifty-two footnotes are provided.