This simulation study examines how work history factors affect arbitrators' decisions in absenteeism discharge cases. The authors analyze the responses of 179 arbitrators to survey questions concerning 32 hypothetical absence discharge cases in which four work history factors were systematically varied. Work history factors and due process considerations both are found to have influenced arbitral awards. Due process considerations (the degree to which management followed prescribed procedures) had the strongest impact, followed by previous absence history, prior disciplinary record, job performance, and seniority. The authors conclude that rehabilitative themes were prominent in these arbitrators' decision making. Other significant influences were the arbitrator's educational background, age, and experience.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgrestiAlan. 1990. Categorical Data Analysis. New York: Wiley.
2.
AldrichJohn H., and NelsonForrest D.. 1990. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
3.
AshenfelterOrley, and BloomDavid E.. 1984. “Models of Arbitration Behavior: Theory and Evidence.”American Economic Review, Vol. 74, No. 1, pp. 111–24.
4.
BazermanMax H.1985. “Norms of Distributive Justice in Interest Arbitration.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 38, No. 4 (July), pp. 558–70.
5.
BazermanMax H., and FarberHenry S.. 1985. “Arbitrator Decision Making: When Are Final Offers Important?”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 39, No. 1 (October), pp. 76–89.
6.
BemmelsBrian. 1988a. “The Effect of Grievants' Gender on Arbitrators' Decisions.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 41, No. 2 (January), pp. 251–62.
7.
BemmelsBrian. 1988b. “Gender Effects in Discharge Arbitration.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 63–76.
8.
BemmelsBrian. 1990. “Arbitrator Characteristics and Arbitrator Decisions.”Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 181–92.
9.
BlockRichard N., and StieberJack. 1987. “The Impact of Attorneys and Arbitrators on Arbitration Awards.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 543–55.
10.
BloomDavid E.1986. “Empirical Models of Arbitrator Behavior Under Conventional Arbitration.”Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 68, No. 4, pp. 578–85.
11.
BognannoMario F., and ColemanCharles J., eds. 1992. Labor Arbitration in America. New York: Praeger.
12.
CainJoseph P., and StahlMichael J.. 1983. “Modeling the Policies of Several Labor Arbitrators.”Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 140–47.
13.
CaudillSteven B., and OswaldSharon L.. 1992. “An Alternative to Bemmels's Method of Investigating Biases in Arbitration.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 800–805.
14.
CohenJacob, and CohenPatricia. 1983. Applied Multiple Regression / Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
CookThomas D., and CampbellDonald T.. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
16.
DaughteryCarroll R., arbitrator. Chief Brothers Cooperage Corp. 42 LA 555 (1964), and Enterprise Wire Co., 46 LA 359 (1966).
17.
DeitschClarence R., and DiltsDavid A.. 1989. “An Analysis of Arbitrator Characteristics and Their Effects on Decision Making in Discharge Cases.”Labor Law Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 112–16.
18.
DillmanDon. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley.
19.
EdenGenevieve. 1992. “Progressive Discipline: An Oxymoron?”Relations Industrielles, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 511–27.
20.
ElkouriF., and ElkouriE. A.. 1985. How Arbitration Works. Washington, D.C.: BNA.
21.
FarberHenry S., and BazermanMax H.. 1986. “The General Basis of Arbitrator Behavior: An Empirical Analysis of Conventional and Final-Offer Arbitration.”Econometrica, Vol. 54, No. 6, pp. 1503–28.
22.
FarwellDonald F.KovenAdoplh M., and SmithSusan L.. 1992. Just Cause: The Seven Tests. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.
23.
FlemingRobbin. 1967. The Labor Arbitration Process. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
24.
HenemanHerbert G., and SandverMarcus H.. 1983. “Arbitrators' Backgrounds and Behavior.”Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 115–24.
25.
JudgeTimothy A., and MartocchioJoseph J.. 1993. “The Effect of Work Values on Absence Disciplinary Decisions: The Role of Fairness Orientation and Supervisor Attributions.” Fifty-Third Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management (Atlanta, August 8–11).
26.
KeppelGeoffry. 1982. Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook, 2nd ed.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
27.
KlaasBrian S.1989. “Managerial Decision Making About Employee Grievances: The Impact of the Grievant's Work History.”Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 52–68.
28.
LiaoFuting. 1994. Interpreting Probability Models: Logit, Probit, and Other Generalized Linear Models. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
29.
MartocchioJoseph J.1992. “Disciplinary Responses to Employee Absenteeism.”Proceedings of the Forty-Fourth Annual Meetings (New Orleans, Jan. 3–5, 1992). Madison, Wis.: Industrial Relations Research Association, pp. 539–48.
30.
MartocchioJoseph J., and JudgeTimothy A.. 1995. “When We Don't See Eye to Eye: Discrepancies Between Supervisors and Subordinates in Absence Disciplinary Decisions.”Journal of Management, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 251–78.
31.
MeglinoB. M.RavlinE. C., and AdkinsC. L.. 1989. “A Work Values Approach to Corporate Culture: A Field Test of the Values Congruence Process and Its Relationship to Individual Outcomes.”Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 3, pp. 424–32.
32.
NelsonNels E., and CurryEarl M.Jr.1981. “Arbitrator Characteristics and Arbitral Decisions.”Industrial Relations, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 312–17.
33.
RavlinElizabeth C., and MeglinoBruce. 1987. “Effects of Values on Perception and Decision Making: A Study of Alternative Work Values Measures.”Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72, No. 4, pp. 666–73.
34.
RavlinElizabeth C., and MeglinoBruce. 1989. “The Transitivity of Work Values: Hierarchical Preference Ordering of Socially Desirable Stimuli.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 494–508.
35.
RodgersRobert C., and HelburnI. B.. 1985. “The Arbitrariness of Arbitrators' Decisions.”Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting. Madison, Wis.: Industrial Relations Research Association, pp. 234–41.
36.
RokeachM.1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
37.
SAS Institute. 1990. SAS Basic Reference Manual. Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute.
38.
ScottK. Dow, and TaylorG. Stephen. 1983. “An Analysis of Absenteeism Cases Taken to Arbitration: 1975–1981.”Arbitration Journal, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 61–70.
39.
StahlMichael J., and CainJoseph P.. 1981. “Capturing the Policies of Labor Arbitrators.” In Proceedings, Southern Management Association Meetings. Atlanta, Ga.
40.
StieberJack, and BlockRichard A.. 1983. Discharged Workers and the Labor Market: An Analysis of Employment Attitudes and Experience, and Arbitration Decisions. U.S. Department of Labor Grant 21-26-80-11.
41.
StieberJackBlockRichard N., and CorbittLeslie F.. 1985. “How Representative Are Published Arbitration Decisions?” In GershenfeldWalter J., ed., Arbitration 1984: Absenteeism, Recent Law, Panels, and Published Decisions. Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Arbitrators. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.
42.
ThorntonRobert J., and ZirkelPerry A.. 1990. “The Consistency and Predictability of Grievance Arbitration Awards.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 294–307.
43.
WesterkampPatrick R., and MillerAllen K.. 1971. “The Acceptability of Inexperienced Arbitrators: An Experiment.”Labor Law Journal, Vol. 23, No. 12, pp. 763–70.
