A model is proposed to explain rights arbitrator willingness to accept interest arbitration cases. Findings suggest that rights arbitrators are more likely to accept interest arbitration cases if they are younger, they are not a NAA member, they have strong beliefs in their ability to render interest arbitration decisions, and they have more experience handling interest arbitration cases. The proposed model accounted for just under half the variance (Adjusted R2 = 0.48) in rights arbitrator willingness to accept interest arbitration cases. Study limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonArvid. 1973. “Lessons from Interest Arbitration in the Public Sector: The Experience in Four Jurisdictions,” Proceeding of the 26th Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Arbitrators, New YorkUniversity Press: 59–105.
2.
BloomDavid E.CavanaghChristopher L.1986. “An Analysis of the Selection of Arbitrators,” American Economic Review76, 3: 408–422.
3.
BorsteinTim. 1978a. “Interest Arbitration in Public Employment: An Arbitrator Views the Process,” Labor Law Journal29, 1: 77–86.
4.
BorsteinTim. 1978b. “Interest Arbitration Involves More than Labor Relations,” Labor Management Relations Service Newsletter9: 4–5.
FeuillePeter. 1975. “Final Offer Arbitrators Decide and the Chilling Effect,” Industrial Relations14, 3: 302–310.
12.
FeuillePeter. 1979. “Selected Benefits and Costs of Compulsory Arbitration,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review33, 1: 64–76.
13.
FeuillePeter. 1986. “Compulsory Interest Arbitration comes to Illinois,” Illinois Public Employee Relations Report3, 2: 1–7.
14.
FishbeinMartinAjzenI.1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
15.
FlemingRobben W.1973. “Interest Arbitration Revisited,” Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Arbitrators. New York: New York University Press: 1–7.
16.
GiffordCourtney D.1982. Directory of U.S. Labor Organizations, 1982–83 Edition. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affair.
17.
GregoryGordon A.1983. “A Union Attorney's View of the Neutral,” Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution. Washington, D.C.: SPIDR: 42–43.
18.
HelburnI.B.RodgersRobert C.1985. “Hesitancy of Arbitrators to Accept Interest Arbitration Cases: A Test of Conventional Wisdom,” Public Administration Review45, 3: 398–402.
19.
HenemanHerbert G.IIISandverMarchus H.1983. “Arbitrators' Backgrounds and Behavior,” Journal of Labor Research4, 2: 115–124.
20.
HerrickJohn S.1982. “Profile of Labor Arbitrator,” The Arbitration Journal37, 2: 18–21.
21.
KochanThomas A.1974. “A Theory of Multilateral Collective Bargaining in City Government,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review27, 4: 525–542.
22.
KrislovJosephPetersRobert M.1970. “Grievance Arbitration in State and Local Government: A Survey,” The Arbitration Journal25, 3: 196–205.
23.
KrugerDaniel H.JonesHarry E.1981. “Compulsory Interest Arbitration in the Public Sector: An Overview,” Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector10, 4: 355–380.
24.
Labor Arbitration Awards. July, 1984-June, 1985. Volumes 84–2 and 85–1. St. Petersburg, FL: Commerce Clearing House.
25.
Labor Arbitration Reports: Dispute Settlements. 1984–1985. Volumes 83 and 84. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
ScharmanClifford. 1981. “Interest Arbitration in the Private Sector,” The Arbitration Journal36, 3: 14–23.
33.
SinicropiAnthony V.1982. “Arbitrator Development: Programs and MOdels,” The Arbitration Journal37, 3: 24–32.
34.
SnowCarlton J.1981. “The News Media and Collective Bargaining,” The Arbitration Journal36, 1: 47–51.
35.
SpreheJ. TimothySmallJeffrey. 1984. “Members and Nonmembers of the National Academy of Arbitrators: Do they Differ?” The Arbitration Journal39, 3: 25–33.
36.
SPSS, Inc. 1986. SPSSX Users Guide, 2nd Ed.Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
