NCJ Number
93056
Journal
Arbitration Journal Volume: 38 Dated: (March 1983) Pages: 39-48
Date Published
1983
Length
10 pages
Annotation
A survey of arbitrators on the roster of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) regarding their perceptions of 24 controversial concepts in labor arbitration revealed little consensus, although this can be attributed to the questions containing built-in bases for differences.
Abstract
Usable questionnaires represented a 42-percent response rate from the FMCS roster of 1,344 members. Responses suggested that arbitrators valued orderliness of the grievance procedure and due process rights. Arbitrators agreed strongly with the statement that a union officer may sign a grievance ending in arbitration in place of the grievant if not stipulated in the agreement, and most seemed to feel that arbitration panels were not particularly helpful. Many respondents agreed that if one party refused to participate in an arbitration hearing, although contractually bound, the arbitrator should proceed with hearing ex parte. The majority also felt that statements of a company informer should not be admitted as evidence when the informant is not present at the hearing. Another area of some agreement was the concept that a grievant should obey first and submit a grievance later, except in instances involving potential health and accident conditions. Other topics covered by the survey, which showed varied opinions, included the necessity of beginning a hearing with a mutually agreeable statement of the issue, right to counsel, management rights, grievants' awareness of a contract's provisions, admitting new evidence, stenographic transcripts, and discharge as a punishment. Graphs represent responses to the 24 survey statements.