Interest Arbitration - Transit and Other Attempts to Arbitrate Contract Terms (From Arbitration Promise and Performance, P 202-220, 1984, James L Stern and Barbara D Dennis, ed. - See NCJ-94688)

• NCJ Number: 94697
• Author(s): M L Greenbaum
• Date Published: 1984
• Length: 19 pages
• Sale Source: Bureau of National Affairs
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Interest arbitration is examined in the public sector, particularly Massachusetts, which has had a 'seesaw' approach to arbitration of police and fire disputes; in transit operations, namely the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority in Boston; in quasi-public disputes such as those in the airline industry; and in baseball arbitration.

Abstract

These diverse experiences raise questions about the continued acceptability of the process and the role of the arbitrator in protecting the process from attack. The following conclusions are suggested. In the face of a lengthy strike, particularly in an industry dependent on public monies and support such as transit, the parties themselves are likely to opt for interest arbitration to resolve impasses; in anticipation of a lengthy strike, absent the parties voluntarily agreeing to interest arbitration, the legislature itself is likely to impose interest arbitration to avoid future inconvenience as well as threats to health and safety (New York City transit experience); if getting the parties to bargain is the objective, final offer arbitration is preferable; in difficult economic times, people are less willing to give an outsider carte blanche to dictate the terms of a collective bargaining agreement; and if the process of interest arbitration is to be viable, it must continue to be acceptable to those involved and to the governmental body with appropriate legislative authority, lest the process agreeable to the parties be overridden by the legislature.