Analysis of the wages awarded by 64 arbitrators in 25 simulated interest arbitration cases strongly supports a model in which arbitrators, in determining an award, are influenced both by the facts of the case and by the offers of the parties. The arbitrators clearly weighted the facts more heavily than the offers in all cases. In addition, the importance of the facts relative to the offers increased as the offers diverged, suggesting that arbitrators' decisions were influenced more by reasonable offers than by unreasonable offers. The results contradict the naive split-the-difference view of arbitrator behavior in conventional arbitration that has led to the development of final-offer arbitration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJohn C., and KochanThomas A.1977“Impasse Procedures in the Canadian Federal Service.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 282–301.
2.
AshenfelterOrley, and BloomDavid E.1984“Models of Arbitrator Behavior: Theory and Evidence.”American Economic Review, Vol. 74, No. 1, pp. 111–24.
3.
BazermanMax H.1985“Norms of Distributive Justice in Interest Arbitration.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 558–70.
4.
FarberHenry S.1981“Splitting-the-Difference in Interest Arbitration.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 70–77.
5.
FarberHenry S., and KatzHarry C.1979“Interest Arbitration, Outcomes, and the Incentive to Bargain.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 55–63.
6.
KochanThomas A., and BaderschneiderJean1978“Determinants of Reliance on Impasse Procedures: Police and Firefighters in New York State.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 431–40.
7.
StarkeFrederick A., and NotzWilliam W.1981“Pre- and Post-Intervention Effects of Conventional vs. Final Offer Arbitration.”Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 832–50.
8.
StevensCarl M.1966“Is Compulsory Arbitration Compatible with Bargaining?”Industrial Relations, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 38–50.
